Mary, Spouse of the Holy Spirit

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is a topic frequently discussed among Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. The former often are at a loss to explain why the latter do not accept it, and the latter are equally puzzled by the convictions of the former. And both believe that their convictions can be supported from the Scriptures. But in addition to “Mary, Ever Virgin,” another title is applied by Rome to Mary, and it may at first seem to be unrelated to this issue: “Spouse of the Holy Spirit.” This title is, however, often put forward by proponents of Mary’s perpetual virginity even in her marriage to Joseph. Since Christ was conceived in Mary when the Holy Spirit came upon her, and the power of God overshadowed her (Luke 1:35), it is believed by Rome that God was exercising the prerogative of a husband toward her. That is why, for example, one Roman Catholic apologist, Tim Staples, has taught that, in Luke 1:27-38, God was actually asking Mary “for her hand in marriage.”1

Put another way, the Holy Spirit was proposing to Mary. When Mary said, “be it unto me according to thy word” (Luke 1:38), she was accepting his proposal. Since it was the Holy Spirit Who overshadowed her, then by logical deduction, Mary that day became the wife—the spouse—of the Holy Spirit. Thus, John Paul II wrote in his closing comments to his encyclical letter, Dominica Cenae, “I beg on my knees that, through the intercession of Mary, holy spouse of the Holy Spirit and Mother of the Church, we may all receive the light of the Holy Spirit.”2 When is a vow not a vow? This idea that Mary was espoused to the Holy Spirit may seem foreign to Christians, but it does stem from a certain desire for consistency within Roman Catholicism. It has already been alleged by Rome that Joseph did not have relations with Mary during their marriage. Having her become the Spouse of the Holy Spirit would seem to account for that. Brother Anthony Opisso, M.D., in his booklet, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, explains how: “We also have to take into consideration that when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel ‘Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus’ (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you…’ By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that God would enter into a marital relationship with her, causing her to conceive His Son in her womb, for ‘to lay one’s power over a woman’ was a euphemism for ‘to have a marital relationship with her.’”3

What Opisso has done here is establish that the Holy Spirit had usurped Joseph’s position as husband. From that moment on, Mary was therefore forbidden to Joseph. Remarkably, Opisso continues along this vein and states forthrightly that as soon as Joseph realized this—that is, as soon as the angel told him—he at that point realized that Mary was to be forbidden to him for all time. Opisso continues, “For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time. …Having been enlightened by an angel in a dream regarding her pregnancy, and perhaps further by Mary concerning the words of the archangel Gabriel to her at the Annunciation, Joseph knew that God had conducted himself as a husband in regard to Mary. She was now prohibited to him for all time, and for the sake of the Child and Mary he could only live with her in an absolutely chaste relationship.”4

The reader may wonder why this citation from Opisso is described as “remarkable,” but it truly is. What the reader must not miss is that here a Roman Catholic apologist is confessing that Joseph did not find out that his marriage to Mary was going to be a celibate arrangement until he put the pieces of the puzzle together—and when he finally does find this out, it is new information to him. A revisitation of other Roman Catholic arguments for Mary’s perpetual virginity is in order. Recall that many have elsewhere alleged that Mary’s response to Gabriel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”, was evidence that Mary had already taken a vow of perpetual virginity.

Consider Karl Keating, just one example among many: “If she anticipated having children and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask ‘how’ she was to have a child, since having a child the normal way would be expected by a newlywed.”5 But in the eyes of at least Anthony Opisso, that vow was something of which Joseph was completely unaware when he became betrothed to her. Or, perhaps Opisso does not really believe that Mary had already taken such a vow.

It is obvious from Matthew 1:18-25 that the angel’s visit to Joseph took place because Mary was pregnant. But from Opisso’s reasoning, Joseph was apparently not aware that Mary would be forbidden to him until then. Therefore, at least according to Opisso’s interpretation, Joseph entered his relationship with Mary with no understanding or knowledge of her vow of virginity. Not only is this contrary to what other apologists have said, but it would seem to imply some deception on Mary’s part. Of course, that cannot be, and this writer is in no way alleging that. The point is that Roman Catholic apologists who would allege a perpetual virginity often differ diametrically in the means by which they seek to prove it.

Now obviously, the matter cannot be settled by pitting one Roman Catholic apologist against another. That is not why Opisso is cited here. The point is that Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity in Luke 1:34 is not nearly as obvious as other apologists have claimed. In Opisso’s booklet, it is explained, that “Brother Anthony M. Opisso, M.D. …has been a hermit for the past thirty-one years. He lives in the woods of the Cistercian Abby in Rogersville, New Brunswick. Born in Manila, in the Philippines, he is a physician-surgeon graduate of Loyola University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois (1950). A Scriptural and Rabbinic scholar, he is the author of five books.” This is quite a resume, and it describes a man of some intellectual means. How is it that Anthony Opisso could ponder the Marian passages now being discussed—and ponder them for 31 years—and not conclude that Luke 1:34 was obviously evidence of Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity? Perhaps it is because Luke 1:34 does not suggest it.*

One may wish to ponder that issue at another time, but attempts to harmonize Opisso’s position with that of other apologists, can succeed in only one way: by concluding that Mary had entered into her betrothal to Joseph knowing full well that she had no intentions of consummating the relationship, and that she did so without informing Joseph of her plans. Mary, of course did not do this. But Opisso’s problems are much bigger than an implied deceit on Mary’s part. Opisso’s real problem is that his arguments imply a much much larger sin on behalf of the Holy Spirit Himself. Did the Holy Spirit do something wrong?

Earlier on in Opisso’s booklet, he states the case for why Joseph could not legally consummate his marriage to his betrothed. Arguing from the Scriptures, Opisso writes, “From the earliest biblical days adultery carried with it a sense of defilement, so that a woman who had known contact with another man, even if by force, was considered no longer fit to be visited by her husband (Genesis 49:4; 2 Samuel 20:3).”6 “The deuteronomic code teaches that a woman who is divorced by her husband and thereafter marries another man likewise cannot return to her former husband (Dt 24:1-4). As the Lord said through the prophet Jeremiah: ‘If a man put away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s wife, shall he return to her again, shall not the land (his wife’s body) be greatly polluted?’”7

For this reason, Opisso concludes that Joseph, being knowledgeable of Jewish Scriptures, history and practice, would have been remiss to consummate his marriage with Mary. It would have been unconscionable, for she had “known contact with another.” But Opisso is unaware that instead of protecting Joseph from lawlessness, or Mary from Joseph, he has imputed transgression to the Most High God. If it can be assumed momentarily (and it really should not be) that the laws brought to bear on the situation actually apply to the Holy Spirit, then it must first be assumed that the Holy Spirit is that “other man” of whom Opisso speaks when he says, Mary “had known contact with another man,” and Mary “becomes another man’s wife.” That “other man” to whom these laws would ordinarily apply is no One else than the Holy Spirit. The problem is that once this assumption is made, the Holy Spirit is then brought under condemnation by Opisso’s reasoning.

Recall that Mary became pregnant by the Most High after she was betrothed to Joseph. Now read Deuteronomy 22:23-24,

Now it is charitably conceded that Opisso has erred in ignorance and could not possibly have intended what he has now done. But the errant implications are certainly present. Once it is conceded that the Holy Spirit is that “other man” in the legal passages cited by Opisso, He by default becomes that “other man” in Deuteronomy 22 who takes to “himself” a virgin already betrothed to another man (Joseph), and “humbled his neighbor’s wife” (Mary). The Scriptures say that is an evil thing. And therefore since Mary “cried not,” both should be stoned publicly. This is what Opisso must conclude. Of course, the careful apologist—indeed, even the casual Bible student—will object, and rightfully so. And for the sake of the Holy Spirit’s righteousness, and for the sake of Mary’s honor, we most strenuously object, too!

The angel of the Lord had already exonerated both parties by indicating clearly to Joseph that the Law simply does not apply in this case. The Holy Spirit, of course, is neither under the law, nor is He that “other man.” Joseph being a just man knew well of this verse, and for the love of Mary was willing to put her away privately rather than humiliate her publicly by a trial and a stoning. His convictions were based on a belief that the law applied to this situation. Clearly it did not. Once the angel of the Lord indicated to him that his fear was unwarranted—that is, that the Law did not apply—Joseph was free to take Mary, his betrothed, as a wife, refraining from her until Jesus was born:

Once it is understood that the Law does not apply, then allegations that Joseph was “forbidden to Mary for all time,” collapse as well. They were poorly built, and ill-founded. If Mary is espoused to God in any fashion, it is only in the same way that all believers are married to Christ, per Romans 7:4. The benefits of that relationship are by no means limited to Mary, but are lavished upon all of the Lord’s elect.

The insistence of the Roman Catholic that Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit provides the perfect opportunity to express the freedom from the Law that the Christian now enjoys by a different marriage than that alleged of Mary. Whereas through the Law, sin came to life and brought death, in Christ we are brought to life and bear fruit to God. Unfortunately, the analogy of being married to God is used by Rome to impose a new law by which graces are dispensed through Mary in response to veneration. In reality, Paul uses the marriage analogy to teach that Christians, married to Christ, are free from the Law.