Psalm 12:6; Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:26,27
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
ADAM CLARKE (1760-1832): It is an article of faith in the Roman Catholic Church, to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): Mary, the mother of our Lord, is never called the “Virgin Mary” in Scripture.
THE EDITOR: “Every Word of God is pure.” Therefore, the correct use of Scriptural terminology is important. It is most obviously recognized when seemingly Scriptural expressions are corrupted into titles. Referring to Mary as the “Mother of God,” contributes to the Roman Catholic deification of Mary, a false doctrine which then leads to a wrong practice of prayer to her as an intercessor to her son Jesus Christ. Now Mary’s virginity at the birth of Jesus is an historical fact in fulfilment of prophecy. But when it is corrupted into a title never used in Scripture, even that phrase “Virgin Mary” adds its connotation of exaltation, and leads into the Roman Catholic false doctrine of Mary’s “perpetual virginity.” What necessarily follows that initial error, is an even greater corruption of Scripture, because other texts must then be wrested from their true meaning to justify it.
JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Luke 1:34. The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God.
ADAM CLARKE: “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,” Ezekiel 44:2. This verse has been adduced by the Roman Catholics to prove the “perpetual virginity” of the mother of our Lord; and it may be allowed to be as much to the purpose as any other that has been brought to prove that very precarious point, on which no stress should ever be laid by any man. Our blessed Lord, it is true, was her first born, while she was yet a virgin; but no man can prove that He was her last.
JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): Whether she continued after this a virgin—that she vowed virginity, as Papists say, we deny: for how could she promise virginity to God, and marriage to Joseph?
ADAM CLARKE: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?” Matthew 13:55,56. Would not any person of plain common sense suppose, from this account, that these were the children of Joseph and Mary, and the brothers and sisters of our Lord, according to the flesh?
MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): Much has been said concerning the “perpetual virginity” of Mary: Jerome was very angry with Helvidius for denying it. But it is certain that it cannot be proved from scripture.
THE EDITOR: But it’s not just a case of misusing terminology concerning Mary. See the same practical misuse with the adjective “reverend.” It means “worthy of worship,” and the only actual Scriptural usage of that term is in reference to God Himself, “holy and reverend is His name,” Psalm 111:9.
MATTHEW HENRY: Because God’s name is holy—therefore it is “reverend.”
C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): How good men can endure to be called “reverend,” we know not! It may be said that the title of reverend is only one of courtesy, but then so was the title of Rabbi among the Jews, yet the disciples were not to be called Rabbi, Matthew 23:7. It is, at any rate, a suspicious circumstance that among mankind no class of persons should so commonly describe themselves by a pretentious title as the professed ministers of the lowly Jesus. Peter and Paul were right reverend men, but they would have been the last to have called themselves so. No sensible person does reverence us one jot the more because we assume the title. This may be a trifle―many no doubt so regard it―why, then, are they not prepared to abstain from it? The less the value of the epithet the less reason for continuing the use of it.
ADAM CLARKE (1760-1832): None of the prophets had ever received this title of rabbi, nor any of the Jewish doctors before the time of Hillel and Shammai, which was about the time of our Lord; and, as disputes on several subjects had run high between these two schools, the people were of course divided; some acknowledging Hillel as rabbi―infallible teacher, and others giving this title to Shammai. The Pharisees, who always sought the honour that comes from men, assumed the title, and got their followers to address them by it.
JOHN WESLEY (1703-1791): The Jewish rabbis were also called father and master, by their disciples, whom they required to believe implicitly what they affirmed, without asking any farther reason; to obey implicitly what they enjoined, without seeking farther authority. Our Lord, therefore, by forbidding us either to give or receive the title of rabbi, master, or father, forbids us either to receive any such reverence, or to pay any such to any but God.
THE EDITOR: The same thing happened with the term “Holy Father,” John 17:11, a phrase used only by our Lord Jesus in prayer to His Father! Roman Catholicism turned it into a title for their Pope, who then claimed infallibility for himself. Religious titles are corruptions of Scripture, the ragged remnants of Popish priestcraft in the exaltation of its “clergy.” Furthermore, exalted titles like Saint so-and-so are designations which also led into false doctrines and wrong intercessory practices. Scripturally, all believers are termed “saints,” and all such usages are directly contrary to the spirit and intention of Christ’s prohibition: “Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven,” Matthew 23:8,9. Are Protestants exempted to use the term “pastor” as a title? Surely not. Indeed, a “pastor” is a legitimate church office, as is “deacon;” as also “apostle” and “evangelist” were once offices in the early church; but nowhere do we read of “Pastor Paul,” “Deacon Stephen,” “Apostle Peter,” or “Evangelist Philip.” In Scripture, an office is never corrupted into a title to dignify any men above their brethren.
H. A. IRONSIDE (1876-1951): Many are still bound by the grave clothes of tradition, or misunderstanding.
C. H. SPURGEON: If a man were to assume the title of “reverend” for the first time in history, it would look ridiculous, if not presumptuous or profane. Why does not the Sunday-school teacher call himself “the Respectable John Jones,” or the City Missionary dub himself “the Hard-working William Evans?”
THE EDITOR: Surely Protestants ought to be as Elihu, who said to Job, “Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away,” Job 32:21,22.
