On Mary, the Mother of God (1 of 2)

Theological Letters

“Clotilde,” an Orthodox inquirer from a Mormon background, reached out to me regarding Mary, the Mother of Jesus. She noticed a bit of controversy surrounding the Mother of God, but having no background in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, or Protestantism, navigating the controversies proved difficult. She thus asked if I might help her understand the various teachings about the Virgin Mother. My reply lays out the core teachings about Mary across various traditions. Although written to a Mormon, my hope is that it will prove illuminating for readers of all traditions.

To all my subscribers, thank you for subscribing. To my paid subscribers, thank you for your support. And to any visitors, please consider subscribing and supporting my work. Enjoy! 

Dear “Clotilde,”

Thanks for your inquiry. You are correct. There is a fair bit of disagreement amongst Christians about the Virgin Mary. How the Mother of Jesus is viewed by Christians varies considerably from one tradition to another.  

In Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox circles, she is venerated (but never worshiped),¹ honored as chief amongst the Saints, exulted as the Mother of God, and petitioned for help and intercession.² Yet, Catholics and Orthodox do not agree on everything about the Virgin Mother, as we will see. As for today’s protestants,³ there is little talk of Mary in these circles, except at Christmas. Outside of remembering Nativity, her name is rarely uttered, except in reference to Catholic “excesses.” Nonetheless, I’ll do what I can to elucidate the protestant perspective on traditional Mariology.

A word of prelude before jumping in. To the ear of those who have never heard the doctrines about Mary, the claims may sound peculiar. One may be tempted to think such teachings are about her and her alone, having nothing to do with Christianity per se. Such a perspective fails to grasp an important feature about early Christian thought that is crucial to Mariology. In the early Church, Marian doctrines were as much about Christ as they were about Mary. By way of example, in the early fifth century, there arose a dispute, which we will discuss, about whether Mary is rightly called Theotokos (“God Birther” or “Mother of God”). The dispute was not about titles. Rather, it was about Jesus Christ. Because the Church professed that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity in the flesh, bearing in his person both divinity and humanity, the Church insisted that the person Mary birthed is God, making her the “God birther,” or Theotokos. To confess this of Mary is to confess the truth about Christ, and to deny this of Mary is to deny the truth about Christ. Such perspective is critical when approaching the traditions about Mary. For these traditions are rooted in not only facts of history but in the truths of the Christian gospel.  

In what follows, I’ll offer a summary of her life as recounted by tradition. I will then look at several doctrines: the profession that she is Ever-Virgin, her Assumption into Heaven, her Immaculate Conception, and her status as Theotokos. So with that, let’s begin.

The Life of Mary

Orthodox and Catholics hold to a number of ancient traditions about Mary and Joseph that are extra-biblical but nonetheless held as historical. Many of these are found in the Gospel of James, a second-century text referenced by early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen.⁴ The text was not held as Scripture, but it was seen as an accurate record of the earliest traditions about the early life of Mary and the Nativity of Christ.⁵ Many of these events are commemorated in the Orthodox and Catholic liturgical calendars,⁶ reflecting their status as doctrine.⁷ The general contours run as follows. 

Joachim and Anna had been barren for fifty years. Joachim was shamed for this, which onlookers viewed as proof of his sin. He consulted the registry and found that all the righteous of Israel had conceived. Thinking of Abraham and Sarah, he resolved to plead with God for a child. He took his herds and servants and retreated into the desert for forty days and forty nights, where he fasted and prayed, refusing to return until God remove his shame. There, he was visited by the angel Gabriel and told that his prayers had been heard and he and Anna would conceive a child who would be known throughout the world. Gabriel also visited Anna, who was at home in her garden, telling her the same. When Joachim returned, Anna was waiting for him at the city gate, and the two embraced, knowing the common message they had received.⁸ Joachim and Anna conceived Mary, and they rejoiced that God had removed their shame. 

Like Hannah after the conception of Samuel, the couple resolved that, at age two, Mary would be dedicated to the Temple to live there with the other holy maidens. Anna ate only holy food upon her bed in her inner sanctuary, and she resolved not to let the child walk upon the earth so that her first steps would be upon the Temple. When the time came to dedicate the child, Anna pleaded with Joachim to wait until Mary was three, which he conceded. When she was three, they took the child to the Temple and set Mary’s feet upon the third step. She was filled with the grace of God and danced before the LORD. During her time in the Temple, she was full of grace; she was permitted to dwell in the Holy of Holies; she was even fed by angels. 

Mary was orphaned during these years, and as she reached age twelve, the priests wondered what to do with her — for she would soon bleed and defile the Temple. Zacharias inquired of the LORD in the Holy of Holies, and there, he was visited by Gabriel, who instructed him to gather the widowers of Israel with their staffs in hand, and God would reveal the man to whom Mary should be entrusted. Joseph (probably 60s or 70s) was amongst the widowers, and he was singled out when a bird descended upon his staff. So Mary was to be given to him. Joseph protested, scandalized by the suggestion: He is old and has children already (one of whom was James the Just, the brother of Jesus);⁹ she is a child; he’ll be the laughingstock of Israel! But Zacharias insisted in accord with the words of the angel. 

Strange though this betrothal may seem, given both the age difference and the fact that Mary was to be a Virgin Mother, we can see its purpose when considering another aspect of the story. The Devil plays an important role in the early Christian narrative about the life of Christ. Well known is the early Christian “fish hook” theory of atonement. This view suggests that God enticed the Devil to crucify Christ. Recognizing that Jesus is the Son of God in flesh, the Devil could not resist the opportunity to try and kill him, not realizing that doing so would undo the power of sin and death. The Devil was thus enticed like a fish to bait, not seeing the hook within.¹⁰ (This is the early Christian view that C. S. Lewis illustrates in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, when the White Witch undoes her power by killing Aslan upon the Stone Table.) Less well known is that this “fish hook” theory was part of a broader narrative in the Church fathers. Many fathers talk about the Devil being aware of the prophecy that a virgin will conceive. Hence, the Devil was watching the virgins of Israel in wait of the Messiah. The betrothal of Mary to Joseph was thus a ruse, meant to conceal her identity as the Virgin Mother from the Devil. And this is also why a man was chosen who would not touch her.¹¹

Returning to the story, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, and he took her into his house while he went away to attend to business. During his travels, Mary was visited by Gabriel and conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit — the Annunciation. Joseph returned and was once again scandalized, presuming Mary conceived by fornication. She denied it, telling him about the words of Gabriel. Joseph was unsure what to do. He feared that if he exposed her sin and her story proved true that he would be responsible for innocent blood. So he resolved to divorce her secretly. That night, he was visited by an angel in a dream and was told that her story was true and he should not divorce her. 

Annas, a scribe, visited Joseph and saw that Mary was pregnant. He reported the matter to the Temple priest, and Joseph and Mary were summoned on charges of adultery. Both denied it, relaying the story of her conception. The priest was understandably skeptical, so he examined them both, having them drink a concoction (presumably in accord with Levitical law) meant to reveal if they had sinned. Neither was affected. So the priest resolved that because God had chosen not to reveal their sin, he would not either. 

Soon came the census from Caesar Augustus, which required everyone to return to their hometowns to be registered, which compelled Joseph to travel with Mary and his sons to Bethlehem — though he puzzled over whether to register her as wife or daughter. There, Mary gave birth. The birth was miraculous, not marked by the increased pains of childbearing that came upon women by the Fall.¹² Instead, there was a cloud of glory (like shown to Israel in the desert and upon Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration) that hung outside the cave (not barn)¹³ and then entered it, veiling Mary at the time of birth. When the light dissipated, she held the child, Jesus. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes (symbolic of burial garments) and laid him in the manger/cave (symbolic of his tomb) (see note 13). 

The midwife who was present was amazed and ran out to a woman named Salome to whom she reported the miraculous happenings. Like doubting Thomas, Salome refused to believe the story unless she placed her fingers inside the girl. So the midwife and Salome returned, and Salome examined Mary to discover she was indeed a virgin. Salome repented of her unbelief and went away justified.¹⁴ In these days, shepherds who were watching their flocks in the field were told by angels of the boy and came to venerate the baby Jesus. 

On Jesus’ eighth day, Joseph and Mary brought him to the Temple to be circumcised in accord with the Law of Moses, and there, the boy was recognized by Simeon as the awaited Messiah. 

Meanwhile, a commotion arose in Bethlehem because of the arrival of Magi, a philosophical-religious sect of mystics from Persia who, amongst other things, were readers of the heavens.¹⁵ The Magi had followed a “star” — which tradition says was not a star at all but an angel, evident in the fact that it moved contrary to the movements of the constellations.¹⁶ The arrival of the Magi awakened Herod to the existence of the would-be-king child. Herod examined the Jewish priests about the birthplace of the Messiah and summoned the Magi to find out what they had seen. He tried to dupe them into leading him to the child, but they were warned by an angel not to report to Herod and to return home by a different route. The Magi found Jesus at the cave and venerated him, offering gifts of gold (kingship), frankincense (divinity), and myrrh (burial).¹⁷ When Herod learned that the Magi had evaded him, he resolved to kill all the infants under two in and around Bethlehem. But Joseph was warned in a dream and told to flee with Mary and the child to Egypt until receiving word of Herod’s death.

Beyond these details about the early life of Mary, other traditions about her include that there are only two relics from her life, a veil and a belt that she wove while pregnant with Jesus. The former has been lost while the latter she entrusted to Saint Thomas upon her death. The Holy Belt has its own long and interesting history, which I will forego for the sake of brevity. As for Joseph, he died before Christ’s ministry, which is why is not mentioned in the Gospels during the ministry of Jesus, and this is also why Jesus, when upon the cross, entrusted care of his Mother to the Apostle John. Mary lived with John in Ephesus after the Ascension of Jesus, and she was revered amongst the Apostles, who miraculously gathered for her death, or Dormition. She was entombed, and when the Apostles visited her tomb, they found that her body was gone, her Son having raised her from the dead and assumed her into Heaven to be with him — the Assumption.¹⁸

Ever-Virgin Mary

The Christian Church has long held that Mary is Ever-Virgin. That is to say, she never had sexual relations with Joseph, and thus remained a virgin in perpetuity. To say that this was believed by the ancient Church would be an understatement. Those who denied the doctrine were deemed heretics, known by the title Antidicomarianites, or “Opponents of Mary.”¹⁹ The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was affirmed by all ancient Christians in both the East and the West. 

Although few protestants today retain the memory of this doctrine, many well-known Reformers did. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin accepted and defended Mary’s perpetual virginity, along with the traditional genealogy of James the Just — the step-brother of Jesus, son of the widower Joseph by his first wife.²⁰ However, as awareness of patristic theology and tradition waned in protestant circles, so did knowledge of and commitment to this and other Marian doctrines. 

Many contemporary evangelicals are unaware of the teaching that Mary was Ever-Virgin or that Joseph was a much older widower with children already. Instead, today’s evangelical often presumes that Mary grew up in her parents’ home, that Joseph was single when Mary was promised to him, that the relationship was predicated on romance, that they were close in age, and that they had more children together after the birth of Jesus. Such assumptions are largely fanfiction, a filling in of gaps passed over in silence by Scripture with contemporary sensibilities about romance and marriage. And when this fanfiction runs up against the traditional view, recounted above, tradition tends to run into resistance due to four pieces of biblical data:

1. Matthew 1:25 says that Mary and Joseph did not come together “until” Jesus was born, indicating that they did come together after he was born. 

2. Christ is identified in Luke 2:7 as Mary’s firstborn Son, indicating that she had other children.

3. Jesus is said to have brothers and sisters in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-6. 

4. If Mary and Joseph did not have sexual relations, they were not actually husband and wife. 

The case is straightforward, so it’s understandable why one who is familiar with Scripture but unfamiliar with tradition would conclude that Mary and Joseph had children together after the birth of Jesus. How, then, did the early Church reconcile Mary’s perpetual virginity with such prime facie evidence to the contrary? The answer is this. Each of these points proves less than conclusive under scrutiny, especially for native Greek speakers, which many of the fathers were.

Regarding Matthew 1:25, there is a difference between the range of meaning for the English word “until” and the Greek word ἕως, translated “until.” In English, the word until typically means up to a point but no further. The Greek word ἕως, by contrast, can mean up to a point but no further. But it can also mean up to a point and beyond, or in perpetuity.²¹ 

Matthew 28:20 is a good example. Therein Christ declares, “And surely I am with you always, until [ἕως] the very end of the age.” The meaning of ἕως in this passage is in perpetuity. Christ is not saying that he will cease to be with his people at the end of the age. Rather, Christians uniformly recognize that Christ here promises to be with believers now and forever — up to and beyond the end of the age. This is in perfect keeping with the range of meaning of ἕως. And so it is in Matthew 1:25. This passage could mean that Mary and Joseph did not come together until after Christ’s birth, but it just as likely means they never came together — up to Christ’s birth and beyond. Neither the vocabulary nor grammar of the passage tells us which is the correct reading. The meaning requires additional information. If tradition is correct, then ἕως here declares Mary’s perpetual virginity: Joseph and Mary never came together.

Now, what of the term “firstborn” (πρωτότοκος) in Luke 2:7? Like ἕως, the meaning — or rather, implication — is not as obvious as a contemporary reader might presume. In Hebrew culture, “firstborn” is primarily an indication of status as the privileged heir.²² Yes, the title indicates that the heir was born first. But this status does not require other siblings. One could be the firstborn, or privileged heir, without having any siblings whatsoever. 

Notice, for example, that Hebrews 1:6 uses πρωτότοκος in reference to the pre-Incarnate Son of God. The author ascribes to the divine Son the title “firstborn of God,” despite the fact that the Son is the Only-Begotten of God.²³ Why? Because the Son is the privileged heir — all that the Father has belongs to him.²⁴ So, while a firstborn could have siblings, one need not have siblings to be the “firstborn” in ancient culture. The title, then, neither confirms nor denies Mary’s perpetual virginity.

So what of Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56, which mention Christ’s siblings? Like with ἕως, the Greek permits a wider range of meaning than the English translation. The word ἀδελφός, translated “brother” (or “sister,” if in the feminine), could mean brother, but ἀδελφός could also mean cousin, kinsman, fellow believer, or countryman. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), we find a number of passages that use ἀδελφός to indicate relatives who are not brothers.²⁵ Abraham’s nephew Lot, for example, is referred to as Abraham’s ἀδελφός in Genesis 11:27-31 (LXX). Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 certainly refer to male and female relatives of Jesus, but little more can be gathered from the word ἀδελφός alone. And as we will see, tradition has a clear understanding of how the named figures relate to Jesus, none of whom are siblings from a union between Mary and Joseph.

Finally, regarding Mary and Joseph’s marital status, there is an anachronistic concern in the view that marriage requires consummation. Notice that Matthew 1:19 says, “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.” Both the reference to Joseph as Mary’s husband (ἀνὴρ) and the reference to divorce indicate a very different understanding of marriage in the ancient world than we have today. By virtue of having been betrothed to Joseph, he was Mary’s husband, even though they had not come together sexually. Thus, this objection is based on an anachronistic distinction between engagement and marriage that bears little resemblance to the ancient world.

What we find, then, is that these four common objections to Mary’s perpetual virginity fail to serve as counter-evidence when scrutinized in the light of the Greek language and ancient culture. Having said this, showing the impotance of the case against Mary’s perpetual virginity does not demonstrate the opposite, namely, that she is Ever-Virgin. So, is there any evidence on the side of tradition? Well, yes. Let’s look at some cultural, biblical, and historical considerations.

Before diving in, allow me a minor prelude. I believe tradition should be taken seriously when considering historical evidence on a topic. I am not suggesting that every tradition should be presumed true. We have examples of tradition (unintentionally) confusing figures of the same name, for example — Saint Nicholas of Myra with Nicholas of Sion and Nicholas of Pinara. So, tradition is fallible. But fallibility should not disqualify it from evidence. The earlier the tradition, the more consistent the testimony, and the more reliable the source, the greater its weight. And as we will see, the traditions about Mary are very early, traceable to the first and second centuries, and include testimony from those who knew her or the Apostles. So, when looking at historical considerations, I will count the testimony of the Church fathers amongst the evidence — as we should. But let’s begin elsewhere. Let’s bracket the patristic testimony and see if, without it, we might find any reason to think Mary would remain Ever-Virgin.

Let’s begin with some cultural considerations. Aspects of both Judaism and early Christianity make the prospect of perpetual virginity rather plausible. In some Jewish circles, it was assumed that a husband and wife should separate (sexually) for a time after a profound encounter with God. There is, for example, a Rabbinic tradition that Moses separated from Zipporah after his encounter with God at the burning bush. Likewise, there is a tradition about Numbers 7 that when the elders of Israel encountered God, one man exclaimed, “Woe to the wives of these men!” The “woe” here signals an expectation of lengthy abstention from conjugal relations.

Regardless of whether these stories are true, the point is the Rabbinic teaching itself. Given such a view, we should expect that a first-century Jewish woman would feel impelled to abstain from sexual relations following a profound encounter with God — especially one so profound as being the physical dwelling place of the Son of God for nine months!

Equally relevant is the early Christian commitment to natural law, which tended to see sex as primarily for procreation.²⁶ Because of this commitment, some Church fathers thought it to be suitable for couples to cease sexual relations after passing the years of childbearing.²⁷ Now, regardless of whether one agrees, the point is, once again, the view itself. Granting such a perspective, which many early Christians had, it would not strike early Christians as peculiar that Mary, having been set apart to be the Mother of God, would choose to abstain from childbearing — and thus from sexual relations — after fulfilling that purpose. 

These cultural considerations grow more potent when paired with biblical considerations. The first is the traditional reading of Ezekiel 44:2. The Church fathers commonly read Ezekiel 43-4, which is about the restoration of the Temple and the priesthood, as a prophecy about Christ. In accord with this reading, Ezekiel 44:2 was read as a reference to Mary and her perpetual virginity. It reads, “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.” Unlike in other biblical instances where barrenness is associated with divine judgment, here Mary’s womb is shut because it is holy. Having served as the dwelling place of the Son of God — or the gate through whom the Son of God entered the world in flesh — Mary’s womb is set apart as sacred. So, it is shut that no one else shall enter by it, for the Lord has entered by it. It no common “gate.”²⁸

This reading of Ezekiel helps illuminate two further aspects of patristic thought on Mary. First, it illuminates why Mary would be set apart from further childbearing. Just as one would not use the artifacts of the Temple for common purposes, so Mary’s womb should never be treated as common.

Second, it illuminates the fact that, to the patristic minds, the womb of Mary was a holy place. If the tomb in which Christ lay is holy because he dwelt there for three days, how much more is the womb in which he lay for nine months? If looked at in this light, it would be inconceivable that Joseph should demand conjugal rights from Mary anymore than one would demand sexual relations within the Temple of God or in the Holy Sepulcher. We conduct ourselves differently in holy places than we do in common places. And as Ezekiel 44:2 says, Mary’s womb is a holy place because the Lord entered by it. Thus, it should no longer be treated as common.

A second biblical consideration is John 19:25-27, which reads: 

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Dear woman, here is your son,’ and to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

The fact that Christ entrusts Mary to John gives reason to think that Mary did not have other children. Both Judaism and Christianity taught very strictly that the care of parents falls to their children or grandchildren, and care for widows falls to the Church only if the widow has no children or grandchildren to care for her.²⁹ If, however, she does have children, “these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.”³⁰ Paul is so emphatic on the point that he labels those who fail in this duty “worse than an unbeliever,” saying they have denied the faith.³¹ Given such a strong stance on the matter, the entrusting of Mary to John gives reason to think that Jesus was Mary’s only Son.

Now, with these cultural and biblical considerations, let’s turn to the historical considerations in favor of Mary’s perpetual virginity. The first comes from Hegisippus, a Jewish historian, and concerns Jesus’ “brothers,” James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, referenced Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. Hegisippus belonged to the first generation after the Apostles and interviewed first-century Christians. According to Hegisippus, James and Joseph are the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. We find reference to this Mary in John 19:25, where she is distinguished from Mary, Jesus’ mother. So, who is Mary, wife of Clopas? Hegisippus reports that Clopas is the brother of Joseph. In other words, brothers Joseph and Clopas both married women named Mary. Joseph’s Mary became the mother of Jesus while Clopas’ Mary became the mother of James and Joseph. Hence, according to Hegisippus, James and Joseph are cousins of Jesus.³²

The second piece of historical evidence is holy tradition itself. As noted above, the Gospel of James, while not treated as Scripture by the Church fathers, nonetheless represents ubiquitous traditions in the early Church and was seen as a record of earlier oral traditions. Hence, we find unwavering uniformity on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity from the Apostolic fathers (i.e., those who knew the Apostles) onward.³³ To choose only one rather notable example, allow me to zero in on Polycarp (69-155 AD). Polycarp was the disciple of the Apostle John, who, as noted above, took Mary into his home in Ephesus after the crucifixion of Christ. According to Jerome — who had access to documents now lost to history — Polycarp himself affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jerome cites the testimony of Polycarp, et al., in response to Helvidius who challenged Mary’s perpetual virginity.³⁴ Such early Christian testimony demonstrates that the doctrine, which is universal amongst the fathers, is not a late invention but one that dates back to the days of the Apostles.

Continued in part 2

1. The early Church differentiates veneration or honor (proskynesis) from worship (latreia). The distinction is reflected in the disputes leading up to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Nicea II (787 AD), which declares that it is right to honor holy people, places, and things, including Mary, but they are never to be worshiped. For worship belongs to God alone. See, e.g., John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, 1.8, 17-8; 2.4, 10, 14, 19, 22; 3.2, 9, 34-7; and Nathan A. Jacobs, “John of Damascus and His Defense of Icons,” Christian Research Journal 42, no. 3-4 (2019): 57-61. The Latin equivalents used by Jerome are “adoration” (adorare), which is offered to God alone, and “honor” (honorare), which may be offered to holy people, places, and things. See, e.g., Jerome, Vigil. 4–5 (PL 23:357B–359A); ep. 109, 1. Ambrose, by contrast, uses “veneration” (venerare) instead of honor. See Ambrose, Exh. Virg. 27. In addition to this distinction, note that Epiphanius explicitly attacks the Kollyridians, a cult that he accuses of worshipping Mary as a goddess, though Epiphanius, in this very same treatise, admits that the veneration of Saints is permissible. See Epiphanius, Panarion, passim.

2. On the petitioning of Mary for help and intercession, see my letters “Why is Mary Called ‘Mediatrix’ in Eastern Orthodox Theology” and “On Prayer to the Saints.”

3. I specify “today” because, as we will see, the early Reformers had a more robust perspective on Mary and remained much closer to the traditional view of her than contemporary protestants.

4. Origen, Commentary on Matthew, VI.7, X.17; and Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, VII.16.

5. See The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts, ed. Ron Cameron (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press 1982), 107-21.

6. Feast Days commemorating events in the life of Mary include her conception, her birth, her presentation at the Temple, the Annunciation of her virgin conception, her visitation to Elizabeth while pregnant, the Nativity of Christ, her presentation of Christ in the Temple, her repose or Dormition and Assumption, and the gifting of her Holy Belt (one of only two relics from her life) to Saint Thomas.

7. On the dogmatic significance of liturgical hymnody and feasts, see Hilarion Alfeyev, Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective (SVS Press, 2009), 205-8.

8. This embrace is part of the standard Byzantine iconography of Saints Joachim and Anna.

9. Cf. Origen, Commentary on Matthew VI.7, X.17; Jerome, Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19; Ambrose, Letters 63:111; and John of Damasus, On the Orthodox Faith, 4.14.

10. See, e.g., Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 24; Maximus the Confessor, Ad Thalassium, 64; and John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, 3.27.

11. E.g., Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, 19; Second Epistle to the Ephesians, 19; Epistle to the Philippians, 9; Basil of Caesarea, Homily on the Nativity, PG 31.1464b; and John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, 4.14.

12. Such is the meaning of patristic talk of Mary remaining a virgin even in childbirth: e.g., Cyril of Alexandria, Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4.

13. Concerning ubiquitous Western iconography of the manger as a wooden stable or barn, the Gospel of James is explicit in referring to the manger as a cave, and ancient Byzatnine iconography consistently portrays the manger as such. This was understood as symbolic, foreshadowing Christ’s burial tomb, and his swaddling clothes, likewise, were taken to be symbolic of his burial garments. Hence, ancient iconography renders the manger cave the same way it renders Christ’s resurrection tomb, and burial garments (in iconography of Lazarus, for example) are rendered the same as the baby Jesus’ swaddling clothes in Nativity icons.

14. The same story is recounted in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, VII.16.

15. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, I.6-10; and John Chrysostom, Homily 6, PG 57.87 (col.64).

16. John Chrysostom, Homily 6, PG 57.87 (col.64); Blessed Theophylact, The Explanation of the Gospel of Matthew, PG 123.11c-d (col.161).

17. Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, hom. 8, 58; and hom. 10, PL 76.1110.

18. Virtually all of these traditions are recounted in John of Damascus, Homilia I in Dormitionem B. V. Mariae (PG 96.699a-721b), Homilia II in Dormitionem B. V. Mariae, (PG 96.721b-53a) and Homilia III in Dormitionem B. V. Mariae (PG 96.753a-61d).

19. E.g., John of Damascus, On Heresies, 78, which is a revised and expanded version of Epiphanius of Salamis’ 4th century work that recounts the same heresy; and, in the West, Augustine, Heresies, 56.

20. See Martin Luther, Sermons on John, chs. 1-4; and John Calvin, Sermon 22 in Harmony of the Gospels. How Luther and Calvin would come down on other Mariological doctrines, such as the Immaculate Conception and her sinlessness (discussed below), would vary. Luther affirmed, not only Mary’s perpetual virginity, but also the Immaculate Conception and her sinlessness — leading many Lutherans to follow suit. See Martin Luther, Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God.” Calvin, by contrast, accepted and defended her perpetual virginity but rejected her Immaculate Conception, insisting that all have sinned and are in need of salvation through Christ. See John Calvin, Sermon on the Prophecies about Christ, in Works, 35, 686.

21. E.g., Deut 34:6 [LXX]; 2 Sam 6:23 [LXX]; Psalm 72:7 [LXX]; Matt 11:23; 28:20; Rom 8:22; and 1 Tim 4:13. For those unfamiliar, “LXX” indicates the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by the New Testament writers and the Church fathers.

22. E.g., Rom 8:29; Col 1:15; Heb 11:28; 12:23; Rev 1:5.

23. John 3:16. On the begetting of the divine Son of God, see my letters “Begotten, Not Made (1 of 4),” “Begotten, Not Made (2 of 4),” “Begotten, Not Made (3 of 4),” and “Begotten, Not Made (4 of 4).”

24. John 16:15.

25. E.g., Gen 14:14; 14:16; 29:12; Lev 25:49; Jer 32:8-9; 32:12; Tobit 7:2.

26. E.g., Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 3.17.102.4; 103.1; Paedagogus, 2.10.81.1.

27. See, e.g., Gregory of Nyssa’s comments on Isaac in De virginitate. Such a position should not be taken to mean that the fathers viewed post-menopausal marital relations as inherently sinful. Celibacy, they insist, should be offered to God willfully, never coercively, since the wedding bed is undefiled (Heb 13:4). On this point, see my letter, “On the Meaning of ‘Biblical’ and Whether Clergy Celibacy is Biblical.”

28. This reading is reflected in Byzantine iconography that displays the infant Christ entering through the abdomen of Mary, the gate.

29. 1 Timothy 5:3-16.

30. 1 Timothy 5:4.

31. 1 Timothy 5:8.

32. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 4.22.

33. To offer just a few examples, see Origen, Commentary on Matthew, VI.7, X.17; Hiliary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 1:4; Athanasius of Alexandria, Discourses Against the Arians, 2:70; Epiphanius, The Man Well-Anchored, 120; Panarion, 78:6; Ambrose, Letters, 63:111; Augustine, Sermons, 186:1; Didymus the Blind, The Trinity 3:4; Cyril of Alexandria, Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4; John Chrysostom, Commentary on Matthew, PG 57:77; on Joseph being a widower with children already (i.e., Jesus’ “brothers”), see Origen, Commentary on Matthew, VI.7, X.17; and Hiliary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 1:4.

34. See Jerome, Adversus Helvidius, 19.