What do you think?
Rate this book
A Case for Mary: An Orthodox Evangelism for curious Protestants
Mary was a Virgin but did she stay a virgin after Jesus was born? Did she live a sinless life?
In his debut work, David Knox explores these and other questions that have become points of contention between Protestants and Orthodox Christians.
Using scripture, history, culture, and linguistics, A Case For Mary shines a light on how, and more importantly why these ideas came about, and why they may not be so unbelievable after all.
In his debut work, David Knox explores these and other questions that have become points of contention between Protestants and Orthodox Christians.
Using scripture, history, culture, and linguistics, A Case For Mary shines a light on how, and more importantly why these ideas came about, and why they may not be so unbelievable after all.
- GenresTheology
91 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 11, 2018
7 people are currently reading
36 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 18, 2018
Please give a helpful vote to my Amazon review - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
This is an engaging and enjoyable book. It comes from a direction that I don't usually see, and although the author, David Knox, takes a few shots at my Catholic faith, I rather enjoyed the spectacle of an Orthodox Christian, albeit a newly-minted Orthodox Christian, enlightening his former Protestant confreres on the Mother of God.
The book is not a work of dry scholarship; instead, it is the product of a person who has spent time wrestling with the issues and now wants to share the fruits of his reflection. This is a pragmatic text that anticipates and works through certain Marian doctrines, specifically, the perpetual virginity of Mary ("PVM") and the Immaculate Conception ("IC"). Knox can do this far more effectively than a cradle Catholic like myself can because he has started with the reality of the assumptions made by most Protestants, whereas I really can't on any kind of emotional or intellectual basis.
On the other hand, Knox confirmed some of the insights that I had been recently developing about the emotional response of Protestants to the PVM, but he takes it much farther than I had thought likely:
"Modern day Protestants just can’t wrap their minds around the idea of Mary, married and committed to her husband and yet never having had sex with him. It’s unfathomable. It’s even repulsive to them. Aside from the offensive idea of a woman never having sex, they bring up Scripture that mentions Jesus having brothers and sisters, they question whether a marriage that was never consummated is legal, and they point out the obvious language in Matthew where it says that Joseph did not “know” his wife “until” she had given birth. All pretty damning, huh?
OFFENSIVE?
While I can give very valid, and even Scriptural, examples of why these points are not quite the slam-dunks that you are hoping for, I first want to address the general attitude about Mary’s perpetual virginity. You say that the idea of a woman who won’t sleep with her husband is repulsive. It is certainly denying the husband his needs, right?"
The PVM is "repulsive" to Protestants? I would not say that, but, then, I could not, but from internet discussions, I have seen many Protestants communicate a sense that Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of the Son of God offends their sense of propriety. In any event, this passage communicates some of the zest that Knox brings to the discussion.
Knox continues his discussion with an example that I made just the other day in an internet discussion with a Methodist professor of philosophy at Houston Baptist University:
"But what if it was Joseph who wouldn’t sleep with his wife? Think about it; Joseph took a wife but something amazing happened to her. The greatest miracle in all creation happened, and it took place inside her body. Why would he, or anyone, violate something sacred, something set aside for God? Would you go into your church and have sex with your spouse on the altar? No? Why not? Is it because you have a sense of the sacred? Is it because you wouldn’t profane something Holy? So, supposing that Joseph had married Mary with the intention of sleeping with her, wouldn’t her conceiving by the Holy Spirit squash that for him? The answer is “yes” in more than one way.
First, Joseph was a pious man. Even if you are not, and you’d sleep with a nun, Joseph was faithful and pious. He was a man who obeyed God’s instructions1 from the angel, without question. If he thought that Mary was chosen to be set aside for God he would not have profaned her."
This insight is the base point of reference that Catholics, as well Orthodox start from. Honestly, I can't imagine how anyone who believes in the Incarnation can fail to see this point.
Knox certainly rehearses the scriptural arguments for the PVM and sinlessness of Mary. Readers should read these because they are well done. On the other hand, I liked insights like this one, which I have never seen stated so baldly:
"All decisions on doctrine and dogma were done by a vote in the Councils. And the people voting were the Bishops, each the head of the Churches for their own regions. But even then, a vote wasn’t automatically accepted as doctrine. If a vote passed through the council but the priests and laity rejected it, the decision didn’t take hold, like that time the Orthodox voted to reunite with the Roman Catholic Church.
So, dear Protestant, you mean to tell me that Mary and Joseph were just like any normal husband and wife, but somewhere along the line, despite the known “history” of the couple, someone was able to convince hundreds of intelligent and scholarly Bishops to completely change their minds to something as offensive as her perpetual virginity? And then the Bishops went home and told their local priests and traditional laity this radical change, and the people simply all accepted it? Even though you yourselves universally reject it upon hearing?
And you mean to tell me that there is no record of this vote anywhere? There are records of votes on Aryanism, Nestorianism, and records of their heretical writings, but not records of this? Surely there would be some record of some fellow saying “hey, maybe Mary was always a virgin instead of having other kids”. I’m sorry, buddy, but if this is what you are telling me, then you are ignoring both recorded history and reason. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The Church always held Mary to be ever-virginal. There is no record from the earliest Church fathers to ever suggest otherwise, besides your mis-read Biblical passages, and I will get to those shortly."
And this:
"And whenever such a scholar popped up, another scholar would argue against the new idea that Mary didn’t stay a virgin, according to the recorded history and written Scripture. For example, Jerome wrote an extensive defense entitled The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius4 where he quotes Scripture and Tradition from the first two centuries. We have recorded debates, as early scholars would write works arguing their points and counter points. But never did any such debate on Mary’s virginity gather such a following as the actual heresies that it took Ecumenical Councils to decide. Stated bluntly, there was a council to decide on something as unbelievable as Christ being a created being, but there was never a council to decide something as believable as Mary having had normal marital relations with her husband. There were dozens and dozens of councils, some small, some ecumenical, some accepted, some rejected, but there was never a council on the perpetual-virginity of Mary. Because the truth was, and always has been, that she was a perpetual virgin."
Good points. My Methodist interlocutor airily handwaved about a "tradition" denying the PVM. When pressed on the issue, he was only able to come up with Tertullian (perhaps) and certain heretical traditions. In contrast, the theologians, church leaders and councils who explicitly affirmed the PVM are very clear and multiply attested. To talk about two traditions is simply specious.
More importantly, if there was a controversy where is the debate?
There simply was not a debate because these Marian doctrines always existed.
This is a short and highly-accessible book that is not written by a theologian. It is written by a lay person for lay people. If you want a quick introduction to the thinking that changed one Protestant's mind on Mary, this is a book you should read.
This is an engaging and enjoyable book. It comes from a direction that I don't usually see, and although the author, David Knox, takes a few shots at my Catholic faith, I rather enjoyed the spectacle of an Orthodox Christian, albeit a newly-minted Orthodox Christian, enlightening his former Protestant confreres on the Mother of God.
The book is not a work of dry scholarship; instead, it is the product of a person who has spent time wrestling with the issues and now wants to share the fruits of his reflection. This is a pragmatic text that anticipates and works through certain Marian doctrines, specifically, the perpetual virginity of Mary ("PVM") and the Immaculate Conception ("IC"). Knox can do this far more effectively than a cradle Catholic like myself can because he has started with the reality of the assumptions made by most Protestants, whereas I really can't on any kind of emotional or intellectual basis.
On the other hand, Knox confirmed some of the insights that I had been recently developing about the emotional response of Protestants to the PVM, but he takes it much farther than I had thought likely:
"Modern day Protestants just can’t wrap their minds around the idea of Mary, married and committed to her husband and yet never having had sex with him. It’s unfathomable. It’s even repulsive to them. Aside from the offensive idea of a woman never having sex, they bring up Scripture that mentions Jesus having brothers and sisters, they question whether a marriage that was never consummated is legal, and they point out the obvious language in Matthew where it says that Joseph did not “know” his wife “until” she had given birth. All pretty damning, huh?
OFFENSIVE?
While I can give very valid, and even Scriptural, examples of why these points are not quite the slam-dunks that you are hoping for, I first want to address the general attitude about Mary’s perpetual virginity. You say that the idea of a woman who won’t sleep with her husband is repulsive. It is certainly denying the husband his needs, right?"
The PVM is "repulsive" to Protestants? I would not say that, but, then, I could not, but from internet discussions, I have seen many Protestants communicate a sense that Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of the Son of God offends their sense of propriety. In any event, this passage communicates some of the zest that Knox brings to the discussion.
Knox continues his discussion with an example that I made just the other day in an internet discussion with a Methodist professor of philosophy at Houston Baptist University:
"But what if it was Joseph who wouldn’t sleep with his wife? Think about it; Joseph took a wife but something amazing happened to her. The greatest miracle in all creation happened, and it took place inside her body. Why would he, or anyone, violate something sacred, something set aside for God? Would you go into your church and have sex with your spouse on the altar? No? Why not? Is it because you have a sense of the sacred? Is it because you wouldn’t profane something Holy? So, supposing that Joseph had married Mary with the intention of sleeping with her, wouldn’t her conceiving by the Holy Spirit squash that for him? The answer is “yes” in more than one way.
First, Joseph was a pious man. Even if you are not, and you’d sleep with a nun, Joseph was faithful and pious. He was a man who obeyed God’s instructions1 from the angel, without question. If he thought that Mary was chosen to be set aside for God he would not have profaned her."
This insight is the base point of reference that Catholics, as well Orthodox start from. Honestly, I can't imagine how anyone who believes in the Incarnation can fail to see this point.
Knox certainly rehearses the scriptural arguments for the PVM and sinlessness of Mary. Readers should read these because they are well done. On the other hand, I liked insights like this one, which I have never seen stated so baldly:
"All decisions on doctrine and dogma were done by a vote in the Councils. And the people voting were the Bishops, each the head of the Churches for their own regions. But even then, a vote wasn’t automatically accepted as doctrine. If a vote passed through the council but the priests and laity rejected it, the decision didn’t take hold, like that time the Orthodox voted to reunite with the Roman Catholic Church.
So, dear Protestant, you mean to tell me that Mary and Joseph were just like any normal husband and wife, but somewhere along the line, despite the known “history” of the couple, someone was able to convince hundreds of intelligent and scholarly Bishops to completely change their minds to something as offensive as her perpetual virginity? And then the Bishops went home and told their local priests and traditional laity this radical change, and the people simply all accepted it? Even though you yourselves universally reject it upon hearing?
And you mean to tell me that there is no record of this vote anywhere? There are records of votes on Aryanism, Nestorianism, and records of their heretical writings, but not records of this? Surely there would be some record of some fellow saying “hey, maybe Mary was always a virgin instead of having other kids”. I’m sorry, buddy, but if this is what you are telling me, then you are ignoring both recorded history and reason. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The Church always held Mary to be ever-virginal. There is no record from the earliest Church fathers to ever suggest otherwise, besides your mis-read Biblical passages, and I will get to those shortly."
And this:
"And whenever such a scholar popped up, another scholar would argue against the new idea that Mary didn’t stay a virgin, according to the recorded history and written Scripture. For example, Jerome wrote an extensive defense entitled The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius4 where he quotes Scripture and Tradition from the first two centuries. We have recorded debates, as early scholars would write works arguing their points and counter points. But never did any such debate on Mary’s virginity gather such a following as the actual heresies that it took Ecumenical Councils to decide. Stated bluntly, there was a council to decide on something as unbelievable as Christ being a created being, but there was never a council to decide something as believable as Mary having had normal marital relations with her husband. There were dozens and dozens of councils, some small, some ecumenical, some accepted, some rejected, but there was never a council on the perpetual-virginity of Mary. Because the truth was, and always has been, that she was a perpetual virgin."
Good points. My Methodist interlocutor airily handwaved about a "tradition" denying the PVM. When pressed on the issue, he was only able to come up with Tertullian (perhaps) and certain heretical traditions. In contrast, the theologians, church leaders and councils who explicitly affirmed the PVM are very clear and multiply attested. To talk about two traditions is simply specious.
More importantly, if there was a controversy where is the debate?
There simply was not a debate because these Marian doctrines always existed.
This is a short and highly-accessible book that is not written by a theologian. It is written by a lay person for lay people. If you want a quick introduction to the thinking that changed one Protestant's mind on Mary, this is a book you should read.
February 3, 2024
A nicely short and clear read. Having been a protestant most of my life I have learned little about Mary outside of a couple of books, one of which was a life of Mary and it had hardly any detail, making me wonder what all the fuss is about. A question I didn't see answered in this book is why Orthodox pray to Mary, the Theotokos.
When I was younger, I would have latched onto the reasonable answers about Mary being ever virginal and being a sinless person because those details would have been critical to my acceptance or rejection of the bible. While I appreciate the answers given in this book, what irks me is how neat and tidy every explanation is. The explanations make sense, the internal logic checks out, but why? Why does Mary have to stay a virgin? Who honestly cares if she's sinless or not? Couldn't God have chosen anyone? Except he had to choose this one woman at this specific time? Did Jesus only come because of Mary? Had Mary not existed would Jesus have never come because she was the only sinless woman in all of existence?
Also, I get why Mary is understood to be ever virginal, but I don't know why it matters. Do we as Christians want to deprive Mary of her sexuality? It is my understanding that in the Orthodox church you can't have sex with your spouse on certain feast and fasting days, on Sundays, on Fridays and a few other days. To do so is to commit a sin. Why deprive people of something that is finally greenlighted for the sexually deprived? So why deprive Mary? Would people lose their faith or be too uncomfortable to think of Mary as being sexually active? How would a sexually active Mary affect church doctrine? Maybe it would be too dangerous, but I doubt it because protestants hardly think of Mary at all and she barely affects evangelical doctrines.
Now what I would like to find is a book that is a case for why church doctrine has to be so tedious and labyrinthian. A final note: I did appreciate the smackdown on church tithing.
When I was younger, I would have latched onto the reasonable answers about Mary being ever virginal and being a sinless person because those details would have been critical to my acceptance or rejection of the bible. While I appreciate the answers given in this book, what irks me is how neat and tidy every explanation is. The explanations make sense, the internal logic checks out, but why? Why does Mary have to stay a virgin? Who honestly cares if she's sinless or not? Couldn't God have chosen anyone? Except he had to choose this one woman at this specific time? Did Jesus only come because of Mary? Had Mary not existed would Jesus have never come because she was the only sinless woman in all of existence?
Also, I get why Mary is understood to be ever virginal, but I don't know why it matters. Do we as Christians want to deprive Mary of her sexuality? It is my understanding that in the Orthodox church you can't have sex with your spouse on certain feast and fasting days, on Sundays, on Fridays and a few other days. To do so is to commit a sin. Why deprive people of something that is finally greenlighted for the sexually deprived? So why deprive Mary? Would people lose their faith or be too uncomfortable to think of Mary as being sexually active? How would a sexually active Mary affect church doctrine? Maybe it would be too dangerous, but I doubt it because protestants hardly think of Mary at all and she barely affects evangelical doctrines.
Now what I would like to find is a book that is a case for why church doctrine has to be so tedious and labyrinthian. A final note: I did appreciate the smackdown on church tithing.
July 12, 2023
There is some decent arguments made in this books, but the author is almost unbearable. The tone and aggression of the book calms down farther into it, but it starts out rather hostile. The author also comes off rather unintelligent when boasting about being an intellectual, talking down to anyone who feels that what he is arguing is unimportant, and yet does one of the most unintelligent things of drawing irrational conclusions from very simple statements. All in all I came away more informed, and I agree with the stance he claims for the Orthodox church over what I know of the Roman Catholic church, but his delivery is rather aggressive and unenjoyable to read. If you are a protestant who is happy with what you believe and simply want a better understanding of other variations of Christianity, be prepared to have him make false assumptions about you, and your faith in Protestantism, and for him to talk very harshly of your beliefs. If you can power through, however, there is some value to be had. If he writes another book I would recommend better interior book design, and embracing a spirit of love and encouragement rather than belittling the reader and forcing them into a state of defensiveness.
June 28, 2019
Really interesting overview of the Blessed Virgin Mary for Protestants, from an Orthodox perspective. As a Catholic, it was nice to see the commonalities and the very few points of difference (stops short of the Immaculate Conception). I also appreciate the kind of random Appendix thrown in against the Prosperity Gospel, which has nothing to do with the title or most of the contents, but felt like, "As long as I'm talking to Protestants, let's over this too because it's in response to my personal Protestant heritage." It almost inspires me to write a devotional and do an Appendix called "Against Usury." We all have our favorite issues.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews