St. Sabbas the Sanctified Orthodox Monastery

The Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos

And The Winter Pascha

by Igumen Gregory (Zaiens)

Part One: Mariology

When, in our Holy Orthodox Church we call the Theotokos Ever-Virgin, what do we indicate? Does this only mean that Mary, the Mother of God, conceived as a virgin by the Holy Spirit, or does it signify something more? It definitely signifies something more, for our Lady Theotokos experienced a supernatural birth, she continued a virgin in giving birth, and remained so afterwards. This was testified to by one of the midwives who entered the cave of the Nativity of our Lord a little after His birth. The Theotokos allowed the midwife to examine her, and this woman declared, “Lord, Lord Almighty have mercy on us! It has never been heard or thought of, that anyone should have her breasts full of milk, and that the birth of a son should show his mother to be a virgin. But there has been no spilling of blood in his birth, no pain in bringing him forth. A virgin has conceived, a virgin has brought forth, and a virgin she remains”. [From the Apocryphal Gospel attributed to St. Matthew] Therefore she is the Ever-Virgin Mother of God.

It is unfortunate, quite unfortunate that we have seen the opposite expressed by modern day scholars in our holy Orthodox Church. This then, leads us to a brief examination of one chapter in the book The Winter Pascha by Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko, and a brief survey of what of our holy Orthodox Church says regarding this topic. It is one chapter entitled, “The Purification of Mary”, and primarily one paragraph that we must take into consideration. First of all one must raise the question: How can an Orthodox Christian write of “the purification of Mary”? Yet in this Chapter it is stated:

We learn from the Church’s liturgy that Joseph and Mary were considered to be poor, since they did not offer a lamb, but rather the turtle doves, as is depicted on the icons of the feast. The Gospel of Saint Luke makes no mention of the possibility of offering a lamb. We learn as well that, although the accent of the liturgy is on the meeting, Mary did in fact come for purification as the law required. This means that her womb was opened and that the Christ Child was born from her in the manner in which all children are born. In this sense, although the Church insists that Mary remains forever a virgin, the only miracle in regard to the Lord’s birth is the virginal conception. There is no teaching of any other sort of a miracle in regard to His birth; certainly no idea that He came forth from His mother without opening her womb. (pp. 174-5)

Furthermore, by way of conversation, several students of the author have related how he has expounded the subject at hand. In classroom lectures it has been taught that in order for Christ to be fully human He had to have a normal human birth, which meant birth pangs, the breaking of the seal of the Theotokos’ virginity, and the usual bleeding of a woman. What does the Church say about this? The Theotokos is ever-virgin, she is virgin before, during and after childbirth. She had no birth pangs, there was no spilling of blood in the birth of Christ, the Theotokos was alone in the cave when she gave birth to our Lord, and it was a supernatural birth. The midwife quoted above has testified to this and this has been confirmed by Scriptures, the writings of our Holy Fathers, and the liturgical tradition of the Church.

To begin with we can quote the Prophet Isaiah: “Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child”. (Isa 66:7) This is a prophecy of the painless birth giving of the Theotokos to our Lord. St. John of Damascus confirms this in writing:

Having completed the nine-month period He was born at the beginning of the tenth, it was in accordance with the law of gestation; while because it was without pain, it surpassed the established order of birth (emphasis mine) — for, where pleasure had not preceded, pain did not follow, as the Prophet said: “Before she was in labor, she brought forth, and again: before her time came to be delivered she brought forth a man child.” (Isaiah66:7) [Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Christian Faith, Book 4, Chapter 14]

Likewise St. Irenaeus of Lyons in writing of this says: “And concerning His birth, the same prophet says in another place (Is. 66:7), ‘Before she who was in labor gave birth, and before the birth pains came on, she was delivered of a male child;’ thus he indicated His unexpected and extraordinary birth from the Virgin”. [“The Miraculous Virgin Birth of our Lord” See: http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/ readings/ibelieve/incarnation.shtml]

In the canons of the Church in reference to Nativity icons we see the miraculous birth of our Lord confirmed:

Just as we confess the conception of the Theotoke to have been seedless and to have resulted from the action of the Holy Spirit, so in like manner we also join in confessing Her childbirth to have been one above every accompaniment of any confinement due to what is commonly called childbed, which consists in giving birth to an infant with the accompanying pangs of childbed and is followed by a flux of blood, according to Zonaras. [He was a 12^th century Byzantine canonist and historian] Whoever should do this, if he be a Cleric, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated. [From the interpretation of Canon LXXIX of the 102 Canons of the Quinisext or Sixth Ecumenical Council]

The footnote to this carries on as follows:

Hence artists painting pictures ought not to depict the Theotoke on the occasion of the feast of Christmas, at the Nativity of Christ, to be lying on a bed and apparently exhausted by the pain….For certain women, on the other hand, to be depicted as washing Christ in a basin, as is seen in many icons representing the Nativity of Christ, is an absurdity and impropriety of the rankest kind, and is an invention of carnal men; wherefore it ought by all means be discarded.

Let us now continue and consider the prophecy of Ezekiel: “Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. Then said the LORD unto me; this gate shall be 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.” (44:1-2) Our Church considers the gate that is shut and shall not be opened to refer to the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, the physical seal (or gate) of her virginity was not violated by the birth of our Lord. Thus Saint Amphilochius of Iconium writes: “In the Virgin Birth, the virginal gates were in no way opened, as He fittingly hath willed, who was conceived there, according to the words that were spoken concerning Him: ‘this gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord God of Israel hath entered by it, and it shall be shut’”. (Eze. 44:2) [The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. I, p. 175]

The hymnology of the Church often speaks of this, one of the most beautiful that does so is as follows: “Of old thou wast revealed as the gate of life to the Prophet Ezekiel through whom the Lord incarnate alone has passed. And as He is the Most High He preserved thee sealed, O most pure One”. [Tone 6, Friday Matins, Ode 3, Canon to the Theotokos] Thus our hymnology also speaks of the Theotokos as being the, “Impassible gate mystically sealed”. [Tone 2, Sunday Vespers, Theotokion at the Aposticha]

Let us finally take a look at several excerpts from our holy fathers that speak of the ever virginity of the Theotokos. St. John of Damascus writes of her: “Just as at His conception He had kept her who conceived Him a virgin, so also at His birth did He maintain her virginity intact, because He alone passed through her and kept her shut”. [Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Christian Faith, Book 4, Chapter 14] St. Leo, Pope of Rome, in his Tome written to the Council of Chalcedon says that “Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost within the womb of a Virgin Mother, who bore Him as she had conceived Him without the loss of virginity”. Also St. Gregory of Nyssa writes:” The womb of the Holy Virgin, which ministered to an Immaculate Birth, is pronounced blessed in the Gospel; for that birth did not annul the virginity, nor did the virginity impede so great a birth” (emphasis mine). [On Virginity]

In concluding what can we say as regards those who speak of the Theotokos as having giving birth to our Lord in the normal human manner? We shall let a 5th century bishop, St. Peter Chrysologus, give us a reply:

Where are they who think that the Virgin’s conceiving and the Virgin’s giving birth are like those of other women? Theirs is of the earth, hers is of heaven. Hers is by divine power, theirs by human weakness. Theirs is in the passions of the flesh, hers in the tranquility of the Divine Spirit and in a human body at rest. Blood was quiet, flesh was still, her members slept, and the Virgin’s womb was entirely unmoved in that heavenly visit, while the Author of flesh was clothing himself in a garment of flesh and becoming a Heavenly Man, who would not only restore the earth to man, but would even give him heaven. A Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remains. [Sermon 117, The First Adam, and the Last Adam, Born of a Virgin]

Part Two: Christology

Christology is so inevitably intertwined with the place of the Theotokos that one could perhaps say they are organic to each other. This is so very true that one could not help but recognizing that proper Christology produces proper Mariology and a blemished Christology breeds a blemished Mariology. This seems to hold true in our issue at hand. The improper Mariology spoken of in the “Part One” of this article is coupled together with an improper Christology. We have already dealt with the erroneous opinion that our Lord experienced a normal human birth and so, now, we shall move on to another misconception.

Last year, in a Lenten Series of talks by Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko, which were publicized on the web site Ancient Faith Radio, another Christological a problem surfaces. In reference to our Lord Jesus Christ at the age of twelve going into the Temple “about his Father’s business” (Luke 2:46-9), Father Thomas stated: “It clearly wants to show us that by the time Jesus is 12 He knows that He has this special calling of God and He grows in the understanding—humanly speaking—of His consciousness (emphasis mine) as the suffering servant—Messiah—of God Who has to die and suffer for the sins of the world.”

What is implied here? Did our Lord Jesus, in His human nature, have the need to grow in understanding? If so, then He also experienced ignorance in His human nature. Such is an erroneous Christology, it is to separate the divine and human natures in Christ. Therefore we must begin by speaking of the union of the two natures in our Lord. Archbishop Dimitri, the former Archbishop of Dallas and the South, expresses the Orthodox concept when he writes: “The two natures were united in the one Person of the Saviour at the moment of conception in the womb of the Virgin”. [The Doctrine of Christ, p. 48] In order to confirm this by the teachings of the Holy Fathers let us turn to St. John of Damascus. In “Book Three” of his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith he writes:

For the very Word of God was conceived of the Virgin and made flesh, but continued to be God after this assumption of the flesh. And, simultaneously with its coming into being, the flesh was straightway made divine by Him. Thus three things took place at the same time: the assuming of the flesh, its coming into being, and its being made divine by the Word. Hence, the holy Virgin is understood to be Mother of God, and is so called not only because of the nature of the Word but also because of the deification of the humanity simultaneously with which the conception and the coming into being of the flesh were wondrously brought about—the conception of the Word, that is, and the existence of the flesh in the Word Himself. [Chapter 12]

In writing of the operations of the natures in Christ he again states:

Therefore, the divinity communicates its excellences to the flesh while remaining with no part of the sufferings of the flesh. For the flesh did not suffer through the divinity in the same was that the divinity acted through the flesh, because the flesh served as an instrument of the divinity. So, even though from the first instant of conception there was no divisions whatsoever of either form, (emphasis mine) but all the actions of each form at all times belonged to the one Person, we nevertheless in no way confuse these things which were done inseparably. On the contrary, from the nature of the works we perceive to which form they belong. [Chapter 15]

As a final point we must consider the opinion that our Lord Jesus Christ did, in His human nature, grow in wisdom and understanding. Concerning this St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his work, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke writes: “He [that is, Christ] is said to have increased in wisdom, not as receiving fresh supplies of wisdom—for God is perceived by the understanding to be entirely perfect in all things, and altogether incapable of being destitute of any attribute suitable to the Godhead—but because God the Word gradually manifested His wisdom proportionately to the age which the body attained”. Although our Lord Jesus grew physically (including His brain) the fullness of divine wisdom was always with Him. This is because the ability of a human being to reason is not a function of the brain; rather—as our Holy Fathers teach—it is a power of the soul. Our Holy Fathers speak of the soul having three powers; they are the powers of reason, desire, and anger.

In closing, let us leave the conclusion to the deductive reasoning of the reader, and in reference to the matter at hand end with the teaching of St. John Damascus:

He is said to have progressed in wisdom and age and grace, because He did increase in age and by this increase in age brought more into evidence the wisdom inherent in Him; further, because by making what is ours altogether His own He made His own the progress of men in wisdom and grace, as well as the fulfillment of the Father’s will, which is to say, men’s knowledge of God and their salvation. Now, those who say that He progressed in wisdom and grace in the sense of receiving an increase in these are saying that the union was not made from the first instant of the flesh’s existence. Neither are they holding the hypostatic union, but, misledby the empty headed Nestorius, they are talking preposterously of a relative union and simple indwelling, "understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm". (ITim. 1:7)For, if from the first instant of its existence the flesh was truly united to God the Word—rather , had existence in Him and identity of person with Him—how did it not enjoy perfectly all wisdom and grace? It did not share the grace and neither did it participate by grace in the things of the Word; rather, because human and divine things had become proper to the one Christ by the hypostatic union, then, since the same was at once God and man, it gushed forth with the grace and the wisdom and the fullness of all good things for the world. [Exact Exposition o f the Orthodox Faith, Book 3, Chapter 22]

May our Lord Jesus Christ, Who assumed and deified our human nature from that moment of conception in the womb of His All-Holy and Ever-Virgin Mother save all those who rightly glorify Him as true God and perfect man, and confess her to be the Ever-Virgin Theotokos.