Augustine on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in Scripture
Dec 19th, 2009 | By Taylor Marshall | Category: Blog PostsSaint Augustine famously interpreted the “closed gate” through which passed the “prince” in Ezek 44 as a type of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary is the closed city and the prince miraculously passed through the closed gate.
Here is the beautiful passage from Augustine describing from Scripture why Saint Joseph and Saint Mary did not consummate their marriage:
“This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it” (Ezek 44:2).
What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this:
“The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,” except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her?
And what means this – “It shall be shut for evermore,” but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth.”
Saint Augustine was one of history’s best Bible scholars and his interpretation of Ezekiel’s prophecy has been followed by the Catholic Church ever since.
We know that sexual continence, in both the Old and New Covenants, is holy and sacred. Saint Joseph, as Augustine explained, would not have violated the Blessed Mother’s womb which had become a sacred shrine of God’s presence.
Moreover, sexual continence is holy in itself. For example, the sexual continence of David and his companions qualify them to eat the Bread of Presence, which was restricted to Levites. (1 Sam 21:4). David and his men were not Levites, but they were allowed to eat the sacred bread because they had not been with their wives. Hence, their sexual continence loaned them the status of priesthood.
The Catholic Church reads this Davidic account as teaching that sexual continence makes a man into a warrior-priest, one consecrated to the Lord…even Uriah the Hittite understood this:
Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah dwell in booths; and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field; shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing.” (2 Sam 11:11).
Saint Joseph (a son of David) was also a warrior-priest who is a dream-prophet like Joseph the Patriarch. Saint Joseph led the true Israel (Christ) into Egypt and back again to the Promised Land. He is the chaste one, just as Joseph the Patriarch remained chaste in the house of his master. Joseph dared not enter the womb that God had already indwelt. Just as the utensils of the Temple in Babylon remained holy to the Lord after the exile, so Mary’s womb remains holy and consecrated.
I am afraid that there are a few of things here that I disagree with:
“We know that sexual continence, in both the Old and New Covenants, is holy and sacred. Moreover, sexual continence is holy in itself.”
Is that really true? Certainly sexual continence per se is not holy and sacred. Certainly it has to be the reason for the withholding that makes it holy, not the abstention itself. After all, if I withhold sex from my spouse to punish them, I wouldn’t think that’s holy. But if I wanted to abstain for a while to spend time in meditation and prayer that would be.
Perhaps that’s what you meant, but if so then that meaning is unclear to me.
“For example, the sexual continence of David and his companions qualify them to eat the Bread of Presence, which was restricted to Levites. (1 Sam 21:4). David and his men were not Levites, but they were allowed to eat the sacred bread because they had not been with their wives. Hence, their sexual continence loaned them the status of priesthood.”
I think that’s an overstatement. One didn’t have to abstain from sex to become a levitical priest so abstaining from sex couldn’t make David and his men priests. But sex could make one ritually impure for a limited time according to OT law. Instead it appears that Ahimelech is willing to make an exception to the normal rule of only priests eating the bread if the men are ritually pure due to David’s apparent dire need. All David is doing is assuring the priest that he and his men are ritually pure.
“The Catholic Church reads this Davidic account as teaching that sexual continence makes a man into a warrior-priest, one consecrated to the Lord…even Uriah the Hittite understood this:
‘Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah dwell in booths; and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field; shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing.” (2 Sam 11:11).’ ”
That appears to me to be a misreading of what is going on. Uriah refers not only to abstaining from sex but also eating and drinking. As an officer in the army he wants to share in the circumstances of his men, not enjoying himself at home. His simple point, one made by many military commanders through history, is that while the army is out in the field, he’s not going to enjoy the benefits of being home “on leave”. So while he has to be in Jerusalem because the king called him, he’s not going to enjoy the benefits of being there while the army is in the field.
Steve,
Yes, only sexual continence to the glory of God is good and holy.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough about David. David and his men didn’t actually become Levites. However, the sexual abstinence allowed the priest to reckon David and his men as Levites. The hinge of this story is that they were sexually continent and this made if “okay” for them to eat the sacred bread.
Your point about Uriah the Hittite stands. However, it also proves the Catholic point. Asceticism (fasting and sexual continence) signifies a deeper commitment to battle. This is why Christ says that some men choose to become eunuchs (not married) for the kingdom of heaven:
Catholic priests are warriors in battle.
It is not clear to me as to why Joseph having sex with his wife after Christ’s birth would violate her. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with sex within marriage so there is nothing to violate. God created sex and blessed it. Surely if one of the metaphors for the church is the Bride of Christ, there could be nothing wrong with the physical expression of love with in a marriage..
I mean, seriously, was Joseph affectionate with Mary? Did they hold hands, kiss, embrace one another? Wouldn’t it be more healthy, more “human” for Jesus to see his parents experiencing the complete gamut of human love and affection, including the physical side.
I don’t see why Joseph and Mary had to become the equivalent of monks.
Steve,
Good point, loving sex in marriage is not sinful.
Here is an analogy. Touching a wooden box is not sinful in itself. However, in the OT a man was punished by God with death for touching the Ark of the Covenant, which happens to be a wooden box. The context makes the difference. It is not sinful for a husband to have relations with his wife. However, if she had given birth to God Himself (as Mary did) then it would be very unfitting to presume a husband’s right to enter what is now a holy shrine. Remember, in the OT, male semen rendered the woman as “ceremonially unclean.” Would it be appropriate for Saint Joseph to render the Mother of God “unclean” in accord with OT ceremonial law? Of course not.
You write:
Undoubtedly they held helds and showed affection. They were married! The problem here isn’t intimacy. Rather the issue at hand is that Mary’s womb is the portal between heaven and earth. It the location of the incarnation of God.
in Christ,
Taylor
A few points/questions:
1) Why is it holy? Once Christ was born, there’s no holiness. The whole point of holiness is to be made separate, set apart. But once Christ was born, there’ no need for her womb to be “set apart”.
2) Mary’s womb is a shrine? Seriously, you mean a shrine? A place of worship and veneration?
But there were lots of things in Jewish life that could make on ceremonially unclean. That didn’t mean you couldn’t do those things (engaging in sex with your spouse, s0mebody had to handle the dead, women menstruated, etc), it just meant that before going to the sanctuary you had to do certain things to purify yourself. Indeed giving birth to a child meant Mary had to go to the temple as noted in Luke for the “time of her purification”. Just having a baby made her unclean which creates a problem there, don’t you think? :) Being unclean did not equal “bad” or else God would have told people to not do these things. Instead he gave them provisions for making themselves ritually clean because in many cases it just couldn’t be helped as a part of everyday life.
But what purpose does her continued virginity serve? You and don’t worship her womb, we don’t venerate it. Sorry, I just don’t “get it”.
Steve,
You write:
Not quite. The Sacred Scriptures say (Luke 2:22) that “the days of” Mary’s purification were accomplished according to the law of Moses.” The law of uncleanliness in childbirth requires receiving seed from a human father:
Saint Thomas Aquinas observed that Moses’ words exclude the Mother of Christ from this ceremonial uncleanliness, given the lack of seed in the conception of Christ:
Mary submitted to the law to fulfill all righteousness. Christ submitted to the tevilah (baptism) of John, but that doesn’t mean that He had original sin or personal sins. Same goes for Mary regarding the purification.
The reason the Catholic Church objects to the ceremonial uncleanliness of Mary after childbirth is that it would mean that Christ made someone “unclean” – something rather shocking since Christ’s ministry entailed making people clean and pure…