Irenaeus vs. the perpetual virginity of Mary

I have discussed the issue of Mariology a bit on this blog, mainly interacting with the dogmas of the perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception of Mary, and how they are without any biblical warrant. In this post, I will show that a plausible case can be made that, not only did Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) did not hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary as a doctrine (let alone a dogma) but seems to have rejected the postpartum virginity of Mary. In Against Heresies 3.21.10 we read (emphasis added):

For as by one man's disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil ("for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground"), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for "all things were made by Him," and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin.

The phrases italicised (“as yet [a] virgin”) are clearly intended by Irenaeus to be taken as parallel to one another. Just as the soil of the earth was as yet a virgin (but only until shortly after when it was tilled), so also Mary was as yet a virgin before giving birth to Jesus. The direct implication is that she did not remain a virgin thereafter. While not explicit, it does show, at the very least, that the perpetual virginity of Mary was a doctrine unknown to Irenaeus.

Robinson and Garrett on D&C 82:7

And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God. (D&C 82:7)

Sometimes, critics will point to this verse, especially the highlighted portion, as LDS soteriology being “mission impossible.” The following quotation from perhaps the best commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants helps provide some context:

When those who have sinned repent and are baptized, or, if already baptized, repent and renew their covenants by partaking of the sacrament, then their sins are forgiven them through the atonement of Christ. Even though a particular sin through weakness or other circumstances may recur, it is forgiven again upon further repentance. In the context of the gospel covenant, the Lord will continue to forgive and cleanse us as long as we sincerely repent (see Mosiah 26:30). The Atonement is a shield from all our guilt as long as we continue to repent and remain in the covenant.

Nevertheless, should we choose to break the covenant and refuse to repent, should we shift our loyalty and commitment from Christ to our sins, then the atonement of Christ can no longer shield us, and we become once again accountable for all our own sins. In the context of this verse, sinneth does not mean failing to be perfect; rather, it means to switch our loyalties, to break our covenants with Christ by choosing to serve sin (and, therefore, to serve Satan; see Romans 6:16). Doctrine and Covenants 82:7 must be understood against the backdrop of Mosiah 26:30: "Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me." Faithful Saints need not fear that their occasional weaknesses will put them outside the covenant and the power of the Atonement. On the other hand, those whose loyalty is to their sins first and to Christ second, third, or not at all, need not expect to be shielded from justice in any degree for all they may have done in this life. If we sin, we must repent. If we sin often, we must repent often. But we must never let go of the rod, never shift our commitment from Christ to our sins. Finally, should we repudiate our covenants, thus losing the shield of the Atonement, not only will our former sins return but they will bring with them a disposition to evil even greater than before (see Matthew 12:43-45). (Stephen E. Robinson and H. Dean Garrett, A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants 4 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004], 2:12-13).

Additionally, our Evangelical “friends” who like to raise this verse (in an eisegetical manner no less) should pay close attention to the biblical teachings on the nature of repentance and forgiveness as well as key soteriological texts such as 1 John 2:1-2 and Heb 6:4-9. Their soteriology, not ours, falls under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9.

Refuting the "Aramaic has no word for 'cousin'" argument

One common argument many Roman Catholic apologists in favour of the perpetual virginity of Mary is that the authors of the New Testament were limited in their word usage due to Aramaic not having a word for "cousin," so the terms "brother" and "sister" were used of the relatives of Jesus we read about in Matt 12:46-49 and other texts. This argument is fallacious on many counts, and one cannot help but conclude that apologists who use this argument (e.g., Patrick Madrid; Karl Keating) are trying to pry open up any and every possible escape hatch because a highly unlikely possible position is being adopted a priori on grounds that are not exegetical. The following provides a sound refutation of this argument:

Some who hold to the Hieronymian view argue that the phrase “brothers of the Lord” has its roots in the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christian  community, and that the woodenly literal phrase in Aramaic (which had no precise word for “cousins,” and so used the Hebraism) was handed down to the subsequent Greek-speaking community in the form of hoi adelphoi tou kyriou, which then made its way into the NT. However, Meier has shown that Josephus, when referring to James, designates him ho adelphos tou kyriou (The Jewish Antiquities [20.9.1 § 200], cited in John P. Meier, “Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal,” CBQ [1990]: 76-103). This is significant, for not only did Josephus write independently of the NT writers or other Christian influences, but it is clear that Josephus knew of the distinction between αδελφος and ανεψιος (he uses the latter for “cousin” twelve times in his works; see Meier, Brothers,” 19. N. 33), even clarifying the Hebrew of Gen 29:12 (where the Hebrew has אָח and the LXX has αδελφος) with a more precise paraphrase: “For Rebekah my mother is the sister of Laban, your father. They had the same father and mother, and so we, you, and I, are cousins [ανεψιοι]” (cited in Meier, “Brothers,” 19). Hence, “when Josephus calls James ‘the brother of Jesus,’ there is no reason to think he means anything but brother,” ibid. (Eric D. Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism [Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001], 294 n. 31).

Polysemous nature of the term "God" in The Recognitions of Clement

There are a number of places where Christ is called "God," but in a secondary sense in comparison to the Father, even after his exaltation (cf. Phil 2:9). One such instance would be Heb 1:8-9:

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast love righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.

This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfilment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim eloheyka)].

That this polysemic nature of the term "God" was understood even in early Christianity can be seen in the following from vol. 2 chapters XLI and XLII of the Recognitions of Clement:

"Listen then," says Peter, "that you may know, first of all, that even if there are many gods, as you say, they are subject to the God of the Jews, to whom no one is equal, than whom no one can be greater; for it is written that the prophet Moses thus spoke to the Jews: 'The Lord your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of lords, the great God.' Thus, although there are many that are called gods, yet He who is the God of the Jews is alone called the God of gods. For not every one that is called God is necessarily God. Indeed, even Moses is called a god to Pharaoh, and it is certain that he was a man; and judges were called gods, and it is evident that they were mortal. The idols also of the Gentiles are called gods, and we all know that they are not; but this has been inflicted as a punishment on the wicked, that because they would not acknowledge the true God, they should regard as God whatever form or image should occur to them. Because they refused to receive the knowledge of the One who, as I said, is God of all, therefore it is permitted to them to have as gods those who can do nothing for the worshippers. For what can either dead images or living creatures confer upon men, since the power of all things is with One?

"Therefore, the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honour of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends, as is often done in respect of angels:  for when they appear to a man, if he is a wise and intelligent man, he asks the name of him who appears to him, that he may acknowledge at once the honour of the sent, and the authority of the sender.  For every nation has an angel, to whom God has committed the government of that nation; and when one of these appears, although he be thought and called God by those over whom he presides, yet, being asked, he does not give such testimony to himself.  For the Most High God, who alone holds the power of all things, has divided all the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts, and over these He hath appointed angels as princes.  But to the one among the archangels who is greatest, was committed the government of those who, before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High God.  But holy men also, as we have said, are made gods to the wicked, as having received the power of life and death over them, as we mentioned above with respect to Moses and the judges.  Wherefore it is also written concerning them, ‘Thou shalt not curse the gods, and thou shalt not curse the prince of thy people.’   Thus the princes of the several nations are called gods.  But Christ is God of princes, who is Judge of all.  Therefore neither angels, nor men, nor any creature, can be truly gods, forasmuch as they are placed under authority, being created and changeable:  angels, for they were not, and are; men, for they are mortal; and every creature, for it is capable of dissolution, if only He dissolve it who made it.  And therefore He alone is the true God, who not only Himself lives, but also bestows life upon others, which He can also take away when it pleaseth Him.

Εως ου in the Apostolic Fathers

I have addressed the issue of the conjunction translated as "until" (εως ου) in Matt 1:25 and its implications for the perpetual virginity of Mary here (a short exegesis of Matt 1:18, 25) and in response to Catholic apologist Tim Staples here.

In this post, I will present the instances of εως ου in the Greek Apostolic Fathers, again showing that all instances of this conjunction show a termination of the main clause, not a continuation thereof. The English translations provided come from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson.

For it is written, Enter into thy secret chambers for a little time, until (εως ου) my wrath and fury pass away; and  will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves. (1 Clement 50:4)

And when the apostle goeth away, let him take nothing but bread until (εως ου) he lodgeth; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. (Didache 11:6)

But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until (εως ου) they be reconciled, but your sacrifice may not be profaned. (Didache 14:2)

And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as ye have in the Gospel; but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear aught from you until (εως ου) he repent. (Didache 15:3)

Brant Gardner on Questionable Book of Mormon Archaeology

I just recently read one of the worst LDS apologetic books I have read (Robert D. Starling, Really Inside Mormonism: Confessions of a Mere Latter-day Saint Christian [2015]). For instance, on pp. 231-32, in an attempt to provide evidence for the Book of Mormon, he discusses two alleged artefacts that have been long-known to competent LDS scholars to be frauds (Newark Ohio Stones and similar “discoveries”). To read a refutation, from a scholarly LDS source, of these alleged “evidences” for the Book of Mormon, see Brant A. Gardner, Too Good to be True: Questionable Archaeology and the Book of Mormon.

Brant has done a lot of great work on the Book of Mormon, and as the Book of Mormon is being studied in Gospel Doctrine for 2016, I will happily “plug” his books:

Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (6 vol.s)

The Gift and Power: Translating the Bookof Mormon

Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History

There is much evidence to support the authenticity and antiquity of the Book of Mormon, as Gardner’s volumes and other scholarly tomes show; LDS should be very wary, however, of such questionable artefacts and “discoveries.”

Jimmy Akin's Opening Statement to The Priesthood Debate

I just recently came across the opening statement from Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin, to a debate he participated in from 1995 here. Much of the information corresponds to my own arguments in favour of an ordained, ministerial priesthood independent of the "priesthood of all believers" within the New Covenant.