The Virgin State of Mary

By Myron J. Van Dorn, M.D.

[Page 139]

(Editor's Note: Dr. Van Dorn's wife is an Orthodox Catholic, and the following is an article submitted in response to the request of her bishop to know the sentiments of our brother concerning his journal The Diocesan Call).

     While reading the February-March 1968 issue of The Diocesan Call, my attention was drawn to the remarks of Dr. Charles Malik in an article telling about his beliefs concerning Jesus Christ and other relevant history written in the Bible establishing the divine premise of Jesus being the Son of God. In affirming the virgin birth of Jesus, he went on to say that Jesus lived with his mother and Joseph for some thirty years and that Mary remained "forever virgin."

     It seems that the emphasis on the virgin state of Mary is related to ideas of her purity and sanctity more than to it bringing irrational grounds for any who would try to insist that Jesus was just another man. I believe that the former emphasis applies to the attitude of Orthodox and Roman Catholic toward the virgin state of Mary. In this article I wish at the outset to affirm my belief in the virgin birth of Jesus on the grounds of its verification in the New Testament Scriptures.

     My faith in Jesus Christ and his redemptive power is established on the premise of verity concerning those things that are written in this book as well as from the prophets of old. I wish further to convey the extent to which it was necessary for Mary to be a virgin and to propose that Christians go no further than the Bible to acknowledge the significance of the angelic announcement to the virgin, namely that she was to mother God's only Son. One need only to read the earlier chapters in the book of Matthew to settle the details about this cardinal matter. Mark and Luke as well have set forth their testimony of this event, which to the Christian, is as important as belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

     The scriptures affirm the virgin birth of Jesus on the ground that Mary had not known a man, not even her espoused (Matthew 1:25). Would not this testimony refute in all finality the concerted attempts that have been made throughout history to deny Jesus Christ being God's Son? Would it not refute the ideas that Jesus was merely a prophet and not the Messiah prophesied in Old Testament writings of the major prophets? If it had been otherwise than recorded, how could one be convinced that he might not unknowingly have been begotten by

[Page 140]

man. The gospel writers made an issue of the fact of premise that Jesus was the firstborn of Mary. They also verify that her conception resulted from an "overshadowing of the Holy Spirit."

     The above references to Holy Writ serve the purpose of God to provide reasonable grounds to anyone who would desire to believe, even the intellectually endowed. Having fulfilled this purpose, Mary was free to be known by her husband Joseph and she was not bound by God to sexual abstinence. Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph did not know her until after she had her firstborn. Reading further in Matthew we conclude and are informed that Mary had other children by Joseph, the brothers and sisters of the Lord. Matthew 13:55, 56 verifies this fact, naming the brothers as "James, Joses, Simon and Judas," and in verse 56 mentioning his "sisters."

     Matthew also relates how the people were disinclined to believe him because of his being among a family of brothers and sisters. Jesus replied to them, "A man is not without honor save in his own country." The first chapter of Acts, written by Luke, also refers to the fact of Jesus having brethren. The apostle Paul in the first chapter of Galatians related that in going to visit Peter, he met "James the brother of the Lord."

     If our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is to be influenced by erroneous statements, either through ignorance or the presumptioness of a commentator, may not our otherwise normal and appropriate relationships in establishing strong, unadulterated marriages possibly be hindered the true fulfillment in a free conscience? If Mary's presumed abstinence were the fact of history, the married people would remain in conflict constantly between living normal married lives and being Christian as well.

     Why not correct within our own hearts and our understanding with verification of scripture the seemingly induced guilt concerning sexual prerogatives, and make harmonious relationships a reality? If Joseph knew Mary after she had her firstborn, there certainly must have been something very natural, normal and appropriate about her having had other children, by the begetting of Joseph.

     The apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7) concluded that in respect of the great persecution and tribulations of the Christians, it would be better that they remain single, but he went on to qualify that it was better to marry than to be promiscuous and commit fornication. He therefore advised the desiring ones to marry. He then instructed that every woman should have her own husband and every husband his own wife.

     He further instructed a marital principle too often ignored in these days, that the wife does not have power over her own body but the husband; and the husband does not have power over his own body, but the wife, with the exception of mutual agreement of abstinence for meditations during fasting and prayer periods. He showed them that by being thus wedded there would be no cause for Satan to tempt them in this area of relationship, or for a lack of godly commitment. The apostle in his letter to the Ephesians (chapters 5 and 6) further instructs people in their conduct of establishing sound marriages and the homelife for Christians.

     A few remarks about "the original sin" and this article is concluded. The Bible account in the book of Genesis is to the premise of faith that God created Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. God saw that it was not good for man to live alone so he created for him a woman--meaning "for the man." He enfoined them to be fruitful and to replenish the earth.

     He also told them that they were to have free access to the joys of the garden of Eden with the exception that they were to leave absolutely alone the tree of knowledge of good and evil, warning them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die. It appears to this writer that the "original sin" was the disobeying of God's wish and command that they not eat of that particular tree. I have been

[Page 141]

led to believe (and stand to be corrected in print) that concessions to sin are made in the sexual act that has to do with the replenishment, if not the overfilling of the earth.

     I invite that you all read your scriptures daily and become versed in the verities of divine wisdom and bodily expediency. The apostle Paul exhorts that we should study to show ourselves approved unto God, workmen that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God.

     (To write the author, please address Myron J. Van Dorn, M. D., 2165 Weslynn Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46208).