Part 4

The Blessed Virgin Mary in Scripture: A Second Response to Jim Tetlow

Tim Staples

It has been a blessing for me to be able to be involved in a dialogue such as this one where both sides of the issues at hand could be explicated fairly—without interruptions—unlike what is often the case in oral debates. It is my hope that all will take this debate as a launching off point to dive out into the deep of God’s word and plumb its depths.

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Jim Tetlow claims I argued “Mary was a perpetual virgin because Jesus entrusted Mary to John’s care.” This is an over-simplification. This is one among many biblical examples of Scripture reflecting the historical reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Tetlow claims “all central biblical doctrines are based on numerous Scripture references.” This is not true. First of all, the Bible itself never claims “all central biblical doctrines are based on numerous Scripture references;” thus, this becomes a self-refuting claim. We can list multiple “central doctrines” that are not found in numerous biblical texts.[1]

Tetlow claims that “the Word of God is silent concerning Mary’s supposed perpetual virginity,” yet he does not even attempt to refute the numerous biblical texts I have used that allude to it. Mary’s response to the angel’s declaration in Luke 1:34 revealed her perpetual vow of virginity: “How shall this be since I know not man?” Mary and Joseph were already espoused, which would be akin to the New Covenant ratification of a marriage at the altar on a couple’s wedding day.

Tetlow claims that Matthew 13:55 (and similarly Mark 6:3) can be understood to mean only that Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters because it references, as Tetlow says, “Jesus’ brothers and sisters in the context of his immediate family (namely, his father and mother).”

Matthew 13:55 quotes the Jewish people from Jesus’ home town who doubted his claims. In so doing notice they also refer to Jesus as being “the carpenter’s son.” But even more importantly, they didn’t say “the carpenter’s stepson.” Also, if we examine a little closer the other texts Tetlow cites (Matthew 12:46 and Galatians 1:19), they are not at all given to us “in the context of his immediate family (namely his father and mother)” so to exclude the possibility of “brothers” to have been used in a more extended sense. In Matthew 12, we have a man recorded as simply informing Jesus that his “mother and brethren” were outside. In Galatians 1:19, James is mentioned as being “the Lord’s brother.” There is nothing in either of these verses textually or contextually that would exclude the possibility of adelphos referring to James being a cousin or some other extended relative of the Lord.

Tetlow goes on to say, “The Greek word for ‘brother’ used in these passages is adelphos and is the normal word for blood brother. In fact, there is not a single example where adelphos is used for ‘cousin’ in the New Testament. Staples is forced to reference the Old Testament in a desperate attempt to justify his argument. However, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek.” I cited the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Old Testament. The Septuagint uses adelphos for both “cousin” and “extended relative” as well as “blood brother.” When we consider the influence the Septuagint had in the lives of the New Testament authors, this becomes all the more important. Tetlow points out correctly, “There is a Greek word for ‘cousin’—anepsios—and it is used in Colossians 4:10 referring to ‘Mark the cousin of Barnabas.’” He also correctly says, “Never is this Greek word used to describe Jesus’ brothers.” However, the writers of the Septuagint had anepsios available to them as well, but they used adelphos at times to refer to cousin or extended relative anyway. This is, most likely, because of the fact that the Jewish people had spoken Aramaic or Hebrew for over a millennium and a half by the time the Septuagint was completed. These languages did not have a word for “cousin,” “uncle,” or “nephew.”

Tetlow says, “Because Jesus knows everything, and because his brother James would later become a believer, Staples argues that Jesus should have entrusted Mary to his eldest brother if he really had one. However, Scripture states that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him at that time. [He cites here John 7:5, which states, “For even (Jesus’) brethren did not believe in him.”] Nor were his brothers or sisters present at the cross at his crucifixion.”

It is highly unlikely that James would be among Jesus’ “brethren” referred to in John 7:5 as not believing in him. To say that James would not have believed is not only a stretch but would contradict John 2:11, which tells us that as a result of the intercession of Mary that brought about Jesus’ first miracle, “his disciples believed in him.”

Even if James were to be included, however unlikely that is, Tetlow makes the leap to claim that James would not have believed in Jesus at the time of the crucifixion. According to John 7, John claimed Jesus’ “brethren” did not believe in him back at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles.[2] The Feast of Tabernacles begins on the fifteenth of Tishrei—six months before the Passover and the crucifixion of the Lord. In that time we know that the apostles—including James—believed in the Lord because Jesus says as much in John 15:3 when he said to the apostles, “You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you.”

Tetlow then claims that because “Jesus elevated his spiritual family above his natural family,” that would be sufficient grounds for Jesus to ignore the fourth commandment (fifth according to Protestants’ way of counting them), which commands honoring one’s father and mother. While Jesus elevated his spiritual family above his natural family, this does not mean he would encourage breaking one of the Ten Commandments when it comes to his natural family.

As for Tetlow’s claim that “it is unnatural and unbiblical for Mary and Joseph to abstain from normal marital sexual intercourse,” this reveals an inadequate understanding of God’s word concerning the concept of marriage. Because Genesis 1:28, 1 Corinthians 7:1–7, and Hebrews 13:4 proclaim the truth, beauty, and goodness of marriage and the marriage bed, this does not mean that all are called to marriage in the same way. Tetlow presents the norm as the only way. But Scripture presents legitimate diversity when it comes to marriage.[3]

The Immaculate Conception

Tetlow says that “Jesus Christ is the only human born without the sin nature. … Jesus is the Father’s uniquely and ‘only begotten Son.’ God the Father placed Jesus in Mary’s womb miraculously. This is said of Jesus alone.” First of all, God the Father did not “place Jesus in Mary’s womb miraculously” as if Mary did not contribute anything to who Jesus was. Mary presumably gave Jesus 23 chromosomes! Moreover, she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit; thus we would not say God “placed Jesus in Mary’s womb” any more than we would say God “places” babies in mother’s wombs today.[4] The Church acknowledges in agreement with Scripture that Jesus alone is the “only begotten Son.”[5] Christ alone is sinless by nature. In other words, he did not have to be saved. Mary did.[6] She was saved from sin at the moment of her conception, but she was saved nonetheless.

Tetlow goes on to claim, “If Mary were sinless the Scriptures would state this repeatedly, yet there is not one direct reference to Mary being sinless by nature or choice.” First, the Scripture would hardly say Mary is sinless “by nature or choice,” because neither is true. She was sinless by the grace of God in the first place and secondarily by her cooperation with that grace. Second, Tetlow makes an assertion without any biblical foundation. Again, Scripture never claims that something has to be in Scripture “repeatedly” in order for it to be doctrine. Third, though the Bible does not make the assertion “Mary is without sin,” it does present Mary as “full of grace,”[7] thus free from sin.

Tetlow states, “Scripture states emphatically that all have been confined under sin,” citing the biblical texts Galatians 3:22, Romans 3:9–10, 1 Corinthians 15:22, and Romans 5:12. These texts present general theological norms. But often general theological norms have exceptions. I mentioned before Hebrews 9:27, which says that “it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment.” However, 1 Corinthians 15:51 says, “We shall not all [die],” referring to those who are alive at the time of the Second Coming of Christ.[8] And then we have the fact that Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, Paul, and Peter all raised people from the dead. Thus, some people will never die and some people will die at least twice! Does this contradict Hebrews 9:27? No. These are exceptions to general theological norms. Mary is an example of an exception to the general norms concerning sin. Jesus is another.

The Woman of Revelation 12

Both Catholic and Protestant exegetes agree with Tetlow that “the woman” of Revelation 12 may be a reference back to Genesis 37:9–10 and the dream of the patriarch Joseph. However, Tetlow exaggerates the point when he calls this a “direct reference.” Would the imagery hearken back to Genesis? Yes. But notice that in Joseph’s dream there were only “eleven stars.” Is this an indirect reference back to the Old Covenant? Yes. But it is in the fullest sense a reference to the twelve apostles representing the Church.

Understanding the truth about this unfaithful woman in Revelation 17–18 becomes important, especially since I think it is safe to say that Tetlow is a Dispensationalist. As a former Dispensationalist myself, I believed it was crystal clear that the whore of Revelation 17–18 was the Roman Catholic Church! After all, Revelation 17:5 tells us that the whore is referred to as Babylon. That was a first-century moniker for Rome. Moreover, Revelation 17:15–18 says that this city was a world power that dominated “peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. … And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth.” This great city, I thought, was clearly Rome and, of course, the Roman Catholic Church. This interpretation was a given, and for huge numbers of Evangelicals and the vast majority of Fundamentalists today, it is still.

We can agree that the woman of Revelation 12 may be associated with Rome. However, the whore we are considering is referred to as “the great city” seven times in Revelation, but Revelation 11:8 reveals unequivocally the location of the great city about which Revelation 17–18 speak: “And their bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.”[9]

While we may agree that Rome is also associated with “the great city,” we cannot ignore the plain words of Scripture. Our Lord was crucified in Jerusalem, not Rome.

That said, Jerusalem and Rome are depicted almost synonymously in Revelation. This seems reasonable when we consider the unholy union between Israel and Rome (Herod and Pilate) that brought about the crucifixion of our Lord. It should not be a surprise that the union between Rome and Jerusalem is described as an evil and intimate union. Israel had become “the whore of Babylon.”

The woman in Revelation 17:3 is depicted as “sitting (or riding) on a scarlet beast” that has seven heads and ten horns. Revelation 17:9 tells us that the seven heads are “seven hills.” Most scholars agree that this is a reference to the seven hills of ancient Rome. Modern Rome cannot fulfill this text because it does not inhabit all seven hills of ancient Rome.[10] More importantly, Vatican City does not inhabit any of them. It inhabits one hill, which is located on the west side of the Tiber. The seven hills of ancient Rome are on the east side.[11]

The “ten horns,” we are told, represent ten kings who are in league with “the beast” in verses 12–13. Taking heed of Augustine’s warning against taking these to mean ten literal kings, these kings most likely represent political leaders subject to the Roman Emperor in the first century and “the kings” of the world in cahoots with “the spirit of the world” throughout the centuries.[12]

In Revelation 17:12–16, these “ten kings” give their power over to the beast and eventually turn against the harlot and destroy her. The immediate and literal sense of this text clearly refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It was Rome, having been in a “whoring” relationship with Jerusalem, who finally turned on and destroyed her.[13]

The Church in Revelation

Tetlow claims that “the entire context of the Book of Revelation demands” that Israel alone is the definitive interpretation of “the woman” of Revelation 12. For example, Tetlow claims, because John lists the twelve tribes of Israel in Revelation 7 and 14, the text must be referring to Israel alone. How could it be any plainer?

Again, we have no problem in including the people of God spanning the centuries both before and after Christ here, but to try to force “the woman” of the Apocalypse to be exclusively Israel of the Old Covenant is to ignore the plain words of our Lord, which tell us that he has established the apostles as “sit[ting] on [twelve] thrones judging the tribes of Israel.”[14] Jesus is revealed to be “the son of David”[15] who fulfills the prophecies concerning the kingdom of God[16] and re-constitutes the true kingdom of David in fulfillment of prophecy.[17] Moreover, and perhaps most importantly for our purpose, in so establishing his kingdom, he takes the kingdom away from the Jews and gives it to the Church as the New Israel. The Scriptures are very plain in this regard.[18] Thus, all of the promises to Israel concerning the Kingdom of God and the reign of God are fulfilled in Christ and in his Church.

For Tetlow and the Dispensationalists, the Church is an afterthought. Israel of the Old Covenant is the “apple of God’s eye”[19] such that—rather than all of the promises of God being fulfilled in Christ and in his Church both now and in the fullest sense at the end of time—all of the promises of God are yet to be fulfilled in the Middle East. When we get to Tetlow’s reference to Revelation 21, we find these words:

Finally, to assure us that the woman is Israel, she appears once more at the end of the Book of Revelation—this time as the Lamb’s (Christ’s) bride coming down out of heaven.

Tetlow then cites Revelation 21:2, 9–12, where “the woman” is revealed to be not only the bride of Christ but a city. Tetlow is careful to show only the verses that refer to “the bride” as “the New Jerusalem” or “the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.” And even though most Christians know that this would refer to the Church anyway, Tetlow obviously wants us to think that this holy city and bride of Christ is Old Covenant Israel alone. So he purposefully ends his quote at verse 12, just before John describes the foundation of the high walls of this city in verse 14:

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the lamb.

This is reminiscent of the Church, but Tetlow does not believe this, so it appears he omits the passage that proves it. And notice as well that, just as it was with the Old, the New Covenant Church is not some nebulous, invisible church but hierarchical and visible. Could this be another reason why Tetlow left this part out?

Tetlow claims that any mention of labor pains in the Old Testament is referring to Israel in the Middle East today (or in the midst of the soon-to-come “tribulation” period of seven years that he has not demonstrated from the Bible at all) and that these labor pains “will usher in the return of the King of the Jews,” or the Second Coming of Christ. Tetlow gives us three biblical texts to prove his point. First, he gives us Isaiah 66:7: “Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son.”

I would add the next verse as well to give us a better picture of what is going on here: “Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth in one moment?”

This text has traditionally been used to show that Mary would give birth to Christ and to the prophetic “nation producing the fruits of” the Kingdom of God. But did you catch how Tetlow used this text? Even though it says there would be no labor pains here, he says this text reveals that the labor pains of Israel in the Middle East will “usher in the return of the King of the Jews.”

Tetlow moves from this text to his second text of Jeremiah 4:31. The context here is Jeremiah condemning Israel for acting the harlot (as is so often the case) and turning to “her lovers,” representing Egypt and other nations to which they were turning for help against the Babylonians. Sound familiar? Look at the preceding verse (30):

And you, O desolate one, what do you mean that you dress is scarlet, that you deck yourself with ornaments of gold, that you enlarge your eyes with paint? In vain you beautify yourself. Your lovers despise you; they seek your life.[20]

This text, Tetlow wants to believe, means that the sufferings of Jews today (or during the “tribulation period”) will “usher in the return of the King of the Jews.”

Then, Tetlow references his third proof-text, Micah 5:3: “Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who has labor pains has brought forth; then the rest of his brethren shall return to the sons of Israel.”

The only problem here is the fact that Micah 5:2—the verse immediately preceding this one—is a text all Christians should be familiar with:

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

This text has been interpreted for us in Matthew 2:6 and John 7:42 as referring to Christ being born in Bethlehem.

Tetlow goes on to cite biblical texts such as Ezekiel 36–39, Daniel 9:24–27, Daniel 12, and Zachariah 12–14, and he makes the wildish claim that these texts refer to the future “Tribulation” where “God again deals with the nation Israel” in the Middle East. Tetlow actually claims, “The period described in Revelation 6–19 is even called the time of Jacob’s trouble,” and then he quotes Jeremiah 30:7: “Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it; it is even the time of Jacob’s [a.k.a. Israel’s] trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.”

Does the Bible say that Revelation 6–19 is “the time of Jacob’s trouble”? No. Does the Bible tell us that this “time of Jacob’s trouble” is some future time during “the Tribulation” period that Tetlow talks about? No. In fact, if you read the context of Jeremiah 30–31, this “time of Jacob’s trouble” leads up to Jeremiah 31:31–34, which is actually interpreted for us in Hebrews 8:8–13 as referring to the coming of the New Covenant. There is no mention of it leading to anything that Tetlow talks about.

And finally, I find it almost unbelievable that Tetlow would say that “the flood that the serpent spews out of his mouth to cause the woman to be carried away represents the antichrist’s persecution of the Jews.” In fact, the entire context of Revelation 12 indicates it to be “the woman,” her Son, and “those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” who are the objects of the Devil’s wrath.

Conclusion

Through responding to Tetlow’s attempts to disprove some of the Marian doctrines, I have attempted to present some positive biblical proofs for those same doctrines. I hope and pray that all reading this debate will use it as a springboard off of which to dive deeper into the dialogue. May God bless and keep you all.

[2] See John 7:2.

[3] And just so there will be no confusion here, we are not talking about doing something that is contrary to natural or divine law when it comes to marriage.

[4] See Luke 1:36, which tells us that Mary “conceived” Jesus.

[5] John 1:18; 3:16.

[6] See Luke 1:48.

[7] Luke 1:28.

[8] See also 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17.

[9] Emphasis added.

[10] See Fr. Georege Leo Haydock, The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with a Comprehensive Catholic Commentary (Catholic Treasures: Monrovia, Calif., 1991), 1648.

[11] See Catholic Answers, “Hunting the Whore of Babylon,” www.catholic.com/library/hunting_the_whore_of_babylon.asp (accessed May 22, 2011). This article gives several other plausible interpretations of the “seven hills” of Revelation 17.

[12] Augustine, The City of God, Book 20, chapter 23. Augustine warns that we can be deceived by taking too firm of a position on that which is not definitive. The number ten may well be a symbolic number rather than ten literal kings.

[13] See Eugenio Corsini and Francis Moloney, The Apocalypse: The Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ (Michael Glazier, 1983), 329. Further , when one considers how often God referred to Israel as a “harlot” in the Old Testament because of her many transgressions and for her refusal to obey the covenant that God established with her, the designation for Jerusalem (Israel) as a “whore” in the New Testament after her rejection of the fullness of God’s covenant in Christ is hardly a surprise (see Isaiah 1:21; Ezekiel 16:15–43; Hosea 1:2).

[14] Luke 22:30.

[15] Matthew 1:1; Revelation 22:16.

[16] Daniel 2:44; 7:13.

[17] Hebrews 1:5 (cf. 2 Samuel 7:14); Revelation 3:7 (cf. Isaiah 22:15ff; Revelation 19:16).

[18] See Matthew 16:13–19; 21:28–45; Luke 22:29–32.

[19] Cf. Zechariah 2:8.

[20] See also Jeremiah 22:20; 27:3; 30:14.