Outline.
1. Prolegomena.
3. Luke 2:7.
6. The Biological Nature of Birth.
7. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Not of Apostolic Origin.
8. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Diversity of Opinions in the Early Church.
9. Appendix: Every Occurrence of ἕως οὗ in the New Testament.
10. Appendix: Every Occurrence of ἕως ὅτου in the New Testament.
i. Introductory Note. Return to Outline.
Many devout and doctrinally orthodox Christians have held to this particular belief (the perpetual virginity of Mary), both before (e.g. John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo) and after (e.g. the authors of the Second Helvetic Confession, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, Theodore Beza, Francis Turretin, Wilhelmus à Brakel, Richard Hooker, James Ussher, John Wesley, etc.) the Reformation. My objection with Rome lies not with the affirmation of the doctrine (though I reject it—or rather I think that it is a topic about which we ought not to speculate) but rather with Rome’s insistence on making the doctrine an issue de fide (i.e. of the faith, or, necessary to salvation).
Cf. Pope Pius XII:
…by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
…It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
(Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus [November 1, 1950], §§. 44-45, 47; trans. Rev. Joseph C. Fenton, S.T.D., (Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference); In: Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine, from the Bible to the Present, ed. John H. Leith, [Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1963], pp. 465, 466.) See also: vatican.va.
Note: The primary purpose of Munificentissimus Deus is the bodily assumption of Mary, however the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity are also dogmatically asserted here.
Adam Clarke:
That Mary might have had other children any person may reasonably and piously believe; that she had others, many think exceedingly probable… The virginity of Mary, previously to the birth of Christ, is an article of the utmost consequence to the Christian system; and therefore it is an article of faith. The question respecting her perpetual virginity is of no consequence; and the learned labour spent to prove it has produced a mere castle in the air. The thing is possible, but scarcely probable; and it never has been, and never can be, proved either way.
(Adam Clarke, The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: Volume I.—The Gospels and Acts, ed. Daniel Curry, [New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883], p. 21.)
John Calvin:
It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
(John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Volume First, trans. William Pringle, [Edinburg: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], p. 107.)
Note: Personally I am inclined to agree with Calvin. This particular subject is well beyond the intention of sacred Scripture and we ought not to speculate. However, due to the anathemas pronounced upon all who oppose Rome’s dogmatic Marian pontifications, I have compiled the following notes on the subject.
Frederick Dale Bruner:
Let me ask a prior question. What does Mary lose if she relates intimately to Joseph? Her virginity, to be sure, but does she then lose her purity, her worthiness, her dignity? Something close to affirming these questions seems to lie behind some defenses of Mary’s perpetual virginity. We are given the impression by some teaching that should Mary have later become a wife to Joseph physically she would have lost something spiritually. I believe that this persuasion is dangerous doctrinally and morally and that it is allied to other errors in the field of sexual ethics…
The theological intention of wanting Mary to be a perpetual virgin seems to damage the doctrine of marriage as seriously as it seems sometimes to contribute to a near deification of Mary. The most grave traditional Protestant argument against the Roman dogma of the virgin Mary is that Mary became, not only in popular piety but in formal definition, an invoked intercessor, an almost divine figure, and so a near idol. The titles mediatrix, auxiliarix, and the like, all place Mary dangerously close to the Godhead. Devotions are addressed to her. Prayers are at least mediated through her. And although Marian minimalists won the important contest at Vatican II, I do not believe that the most recent definitions have been fortunate — though they do seem somewhat less fulsome than earlier ones.
Mary has tended to replace the tender, compassionate side of Jesus in some popular Catholic piety: Jesus is judge, Mary is mediator. But Protestants have not found the Roman elevation of Mary in the apostolic accounts. We believe the Marian honors are dubious at best and pernicious at worst. We believe that a thorough demythologizing of Mary is required if church teaching is to be wholesome, not least in the ethical field. And we believe that this normalization is required for three reasons: (1) textually, the biblical records will not bear the weight of the Marian dogma; (2) morally, the dignity of sexual relations can be undermined by a veneration of Mary’s perpetual virginity; and (3) theologically, the integrity of the sole mediation of Jesus Christ is threatened by Marian devotion.
Christians should give Mary her deserved respect. G. K. Chesterton justifiably lamented that some Protestant “Christians hate her whom God kissed in Galilee.” Mary is, properly understood, “the mother of God” in that she is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is not only a man with us — he is that — but also God’s great personal act of condescension. Jesus is God himself with us, and this not merely symbolically or analogically, but God really, essentially, and substantially. Jesus really is God and man with us. And Jesus’ mother Mary really bore him into history (not into eternity!), and this historical task gives her the right to bear the names the church gave her, not for her sake but for the sake of her son — Theotokos (“The God-Bearer”), Mater Dei (“The Mother of God),” and Notre Dame (“Our Lady”). Mary is the mother of God into history — this we must boldly confess if we wish to hold to the full deity of Jesus Christ, “Very God.”
“Mother” is, in fact, the name Matthew most frequently uses to depict Mary (1:18; 2:11, 13, 14, 20, 21; 12:46; 13:55; Matthew uses the word “virgin” once — and then only in his quotation from Isaiah). I suggest that it is when we, too, keep to this apostolic simplicity in our references to Mary that we most honor her. She may, of course, be called the blessed virgin, and even at times, cautiously, the mother of God. But to go beyond these titles seems excessive.
(Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary: Volume 1: The Christbook: Matthew 1-12: Revised and Expanded Edition, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004], pp. 49, 49-50.)2. Matthew 1:25. Return to Outline.
Matthew 1:25:
He had no relations with her until [ἕως οὗ] she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
The most common response from Rome’s apologists is to note that the term ἕως alone does not prove, of necessity, that Mary ceased to be a virgin after the birth of Jesus. See, for example, 2 Samuel 6:23 [2 Reigns 6:23 (LXX)] (cf. Genesis 8:7; Deuteronomy 34:6 and Psalm 110:1 in the Septuagint [LXX]).
2 Samuel 6:23 [2 Reigns 6:23 (LXX)]:
καὶ τῇ Μελχολ θυγατρὶ Σαουλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῗν αὐτήν [and to Melchol daughter of Saoul there was no child to the day of her death].
(2 Samuel 6:23 [2 Reigns 6:23]; In: Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs, [Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935]; trans. A New English Translation of the Septuagint, eds. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, [Oxford University Press, 2007].) [bold added]
She had no children until the day of her death (and she continued to be childless after her death). One might reply to such an argument as follows:
Joseph B. Mayor:
It is difficult to believe that a man of Pearson’s ability can have been blind to the difference between two kinds of limit, the mention of one of which suggests, while the mention of the other negatives, the future occurrence of the action spoken of. If we read ‘the debate was adjourned till the papers should be in the hands of the members,’ it as certainly implies the intention to resume the debate at a subsequent period, as the phrase ‘the debate was adjourned till that day six months,’ or ‘till the Gr. Kalends,’ implies the contrary. So when it is said ‘to the day of his death,’ ‘to the end of the world,’ this is only a more vivid way of saying in sæcula sæculorum. In like manner the phrase ‘unto this day’ implies that a certain state of things continued up to the very last moment known to the writer: the suggestion is, of course, that it will still continue. The remaining instance is that found in Gn 2815. This is a promise of continued help on the part of God until a certain end is secured. When that end is secured God is no further bound by His promise, however much the patriarch might be justified in looking for further help from his general knowledge of the character and goodness of God. To take now a case similar to that in hand: supposing we read ‘Michal had no child till she left David and became the wife of Phaltiel,’ we should naturally assume that after that she did have a child. So in Mt 124 the limit is not one beyond which the action becomes naturally and palpably impossible; on the contrary, it is just that point of time when under ordinary circumstances the action would become both possible and natural, when, therefore, the reader, without warning to the contrary, might naturally be expected to assume that it did actually occur.
(Joseph B. Mayor, “Brethren of the Lord;” In: A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing With Its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology: Volume I, ed. James Hastings, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923], p. 323.)
However, this response is largely unnecessary, as the particular objection raised above seems to miss the mark, given that Matthew does not use the term ἕως but rather the collocation ἕως οὗ.
Cf. Matthew 1:25:
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.
(Matthew 1:25; In: Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament: 28th Edition, [Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012].) [bold added]
Eric Svendsen:
This construction is used in Matt 1:25 and so is of special interest here. It occurs only seventeen times in the NT… All NT occurrences are temporal. Two of these have the meaning “while” (Matt 14:22; 26:36)... The rest of the fifteen NT occurrences are instances in which the action of the main clause is limited by the action of the subordinate clause and require the meaning “until a specified time (but not after).” Hence, the disciples were not to tell anyone what they had seen “until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead” (Matt 17:9), but they surely were not to keep silent afterwards. The wicked servant was to be tortured “until he should pay back all he owed” (Matt 18:34), but that torture (it is implied) would cease after payment had been rendered. The woman who loses the coin sweeps the house and searches carefully until she finds it (Luke 15:8), but ceases the search once it is found. Similarly Jesus’ promise to abstain from eating and drinking at table will be kept only “until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:18), after which he will inaugurate the Messianic Banquet (Svendsen, 1996:111-145).
Other instances carry this same meaning. The disciples were to stay in Jerusalem after Christ’s ascension “until [they had] been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49), but then were expected to leave Jerusalem and take the gospel into all the world. The rooster would not crow until Peter disowned Christ three times (John 13:38); but then it is clear that the rooster did crow. The days of the purification rite which Paul observed (Acts 21:26) lasted only until a sacrifice was offered. Paul’s Jewish adversaries vowed not to eat or drink anything until they had killed Paul (Acts 23:12; 23:14; 23:21); clearly they intended to eat afterwards. Likewise, Festus ordered Paul to be “kept” (τηρεῖσθαι, i.e., in Caesarea, as opposed to Jerusalem where the Jews wanted him tried, and in anticipation of his itntninent journey to Rome where Paul wished to be tried) until he could send him to Rome (Acts 25:21); once he left for Rome he was no longer kept in Caesarea. Finally, Peter entreats us to pay attention to the word of the prophets “as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises” (2 Pet 1:19)—doubtless a reference to the parousia, after which it will no longer be necessary to turn to the word of the prophets as a guide which navigates us through a dark place; Christ himself will supersede any such need.
There are two instances of ἕως οὗ (parallel passages of each other) that, although having primarily a temporal meaning, have a secondary connotation of extent: Matt 13:33 (“The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough”), and Luke 13:21 (“It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough”). Both could mean “to the extent that the flour and yeast were thoroughly mixed.” However, even here a primarily temporal meaning is not thereby excluded, for it is doubtful that the woman intends to continue mixing the ingredients after she has thoroughly mixed them.
The constructions in this category that come closest to Matt 1:25 are, perhaps, those instances of ἕως οὗ where the main clause is negated (οὐκ, Matt 1:25; cf. μηδενὶ, Matt 17:9; οὐ μὴ, Luke 22:18; μὴ, John 13:38; μήτε, Acts 23:12, 14, 21). (Luke 15:8 is not included in this category since the negative there is used to introduce a question, not to negate the action of the main clause). In each case where the negative is used with the main clause, it means that the action of the main clause will be in effect only until the action of the subordinate clause has been accomplished; that is to say, there are no instances of extent or the temporal “while” in this category. Hence, the disciples will witness to the transfiguration after the resurrection (Matt 17:9); Jesus will eat and drink again in the kingdom (Luke 22:18); the rooster will crow after Peter’s denials (John 13:38); and the Jews do intend to eat and drink after they kill Paul (Acts 23:12, 14, 21).
(Eric Svendsen’s Ph.D. Dissertation, “Who Is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and in Roman Catholicism,” [Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit Vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys, 2001], Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §. 5.d, pp. 35-37. For an in-depth analysis see: Idem, pp. 30-40, 229-250, 251-259.)
Cf. Eric Svendsen:
The construction ἕως ὅτου occurs only five times in the NT (all of which are in the Gospels)... Moreover, all occurrences are temporal; two have the temporal meaning “while” (Matt 5:25 and Luke 13:8), while the other three mean “until” (Luke 12:50; 22:16; and John 9:18). All three of the latter are instances in which the action of the main clause is modified by the action of the subordinate clause (“until [but not after]”). There are three occurrences in Luke, two in Matthew, and one in John. Most grammars treat this construction as a variant form of ἕως οὗ, and so its meaning holds significance for the passage under consideration (Blass and Debrunner, 1961:§ 383).
(Eric Svendsen’s Ph.D. Dissertation, “Who Is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and in Roman Catholicism,” [Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit Vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys, 2001], Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §. 5.c, p. 35.)
Cf. Eric Svendsen:
…in the case of ἕως οὗ and ἕως ὅτου. Both constructions are used solely—not only by Matthew but also by all NT writers who use this construction—to convey that the action of the main clause is discontinued by the action of the subordinate clause (the ratio for these two constructions combined is seven to zero for Matthew, and twenty-two to zero for the NT). Matt 1:25 is just such a case, and there seems to be no justification for assigning to ἕως οὗ here any other meaning than that demanded by normal usage elsewhere in the NT.
(Eric Svendsen’s Ph.D. Dissertation, “Who Is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and in Roman Catholicism,” [Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit Vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys, 2001], Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §. 7, p. 40.)
Cf. Matthew 13:33; 17:9; 18:34; Luke 13:21; 15:8; 22:18; 24:49; John 13:38; Acts 21:26; 23:12, 14, 21; 25:21; 2-Peter 1:19; Matthew 14:22; 26:36.
Cf. Jack P. Lewis:
…elsewhere in the New Testament (17:9; 24:39; cf. John 9:18) the phrase (heōs hou) followed by a negative always implies that the negated action did take place later.
(Jack P. Lewis, The Living Word Commentary: The Gospel According to Matthew: Part I: 1:1-13:52, ed. Everett Ferguson, [Austin: Sweet Publishing Company, 1976], p. 42.)
Cf. Alan Hugh M’neile:
In the N.T. a negative followed by ἕως οὗ (e.g. xvii. 9) . . . or ἕως ὅτου (Jo. ix. 18) always implies that the negatived action did, or will, take place after the point of time indicated by the particle…
(Alan Hugh M’neile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, [London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1949], p. 10.)
Cf. Ben Witherington III:
The issue here is not what heos means without ou or what the phrase means in very different sorts of contexts. When this phrase is preceded by an aorist indicative as it is here (“gave birth”) and follows the imperfect verb “he was not knowing,” it is hard to escape the conclusion that Joseph “knew” Mary in the biblical sense after Jesus was born.
(Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done With Jesus? [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006], p. 319 n. 115.)
Cf. W. D. Davies:
…had Matthew held to Mary’s perpetual virginity (as did the second-century author of Prot. Jas. 19.3-20.2), he would almost certainly have chosen a less ambiguous expression—just as Luke would have avoided ‘first-born son’ (2.7).
(W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew: In Three Volumes: Volume I, The International Critical Commentary, [Edinburg: T&T Clark, 2000], p. 219.)
Margaret A. Schatkin:
If καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτήν were a concessive clause, it would have to be in the form of a condition introduced by εἰ καί and the negative would be μή (Smyth 2371, 2375). Matthew writes a concessive clause another way, using κἄν in a future more vivid condition (Mt 21:21, 26:35. Blass-Debrunner 457).
Thus there is no valid reason based on Greek grammar to reject the normal significance of the temporal conjunction ἕως οὗ, meaning “until.”
The composite ἕως οὗ originated in New Ionic as the analogy of ἄχρι οὗ, μέχρι οὗ, and was used like ἕως in later Greek.
In his Gospel Matthew uses ἕως οὗ at least five times including the locus suspectus (Mt 1:25a) and does not depart from classical syntax. He distinguishes between ἕως οὗ plus the indicative, when a definite past action is involved (Mt 13:33), and ἕως οὗ with the subjunctive without ἄν, when reference is made indefinitely to the future (Mt 14:22, 17:9b, 18:34):
Mt 13:33: ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ζύμῃ, ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἐνέκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον.
Mt 14:22: Καὶ εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν τοὺς μαθητὰς ἐμβῆναι εἰς τὸ πλοῖον καὶ προάγειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πέραν, ἕως οὗ ἀπολύσῃ τοὺς ὄχλους.
Mt 17:19[sic]b: μηδενὶ εἴπητε τὸ ὅραμα ἕως οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθῇ.
Mt 18:34: καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τοῖς βασανισταῖς ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον.
In all these cases, the action of the first (principal) clause terminates when the action/meaning of the second clause begins/goes into effect. When the first (main) clause is affirmative, its action terminates upon the commencement of the until clause.
In these examples (Mt 13:33, 14:22, 18:34), the action of the main clause, being affirmative, has an impact/result upon the action specified in the until clause. There is a cause/effect relationship when the first (principal) clause is positive, though sometimes there is an ellipse of thought or of some stage of action. When the first (principal) clause is negative, the action of the first (principal) clause begins when the action of the subordinate (until) clause has been accomplished. When the first (principal) clause is in the negative, there is a withholding of some action which goes into effect when the until clause is realized (e.g., Mt 17:9b).
As already stated, the controversialist Helvidius in the fourth century understood the textus receptus of Matthew 1:25a (in Latin translation) to mean that the action of “knowing” (sexual intimacy) in the principal clause commenced when the action of the subordinate clause (“giving birth”) had been completed: “Post partum ergo cognovit, cujus cognitionem ad partum usque distulerat.” Though attacked by St. Jerome, Helvidius seems to have been correct in his analysis of the Latin and, by extension, of the original Greek grammar.
The attempts of the church fathers to interpret this verse in any other way than that of Helvidius, reveal that syntactical analysis was not in the front of their minds. Their exegesis appears to be more apologetic defense of the ecclesiastical tradition regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, than objective grammatical analysis. This is not surprising because the textus receptus of Matthew 1:25, when taken literally, clashed with early Christian sensibility about the virgin Mary. Such a discrepancy between Scripture and tradition is rare in early Christianity, as are the efforts of the church fathers to justify the textus receptus of Matthew 1:25a.
(Margaret A. Schatkin, “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary and New Testament Textual Criticism;” In: De Maria Numquam Satis: The Significance of the Catholic Doctrines on the Blessed Virgin Mary For All People, eds. Judith Marie Gentle, Robert L. Fastiggi, [Lanham: University Press of America, Inc., 2009], pp. 54-55.) Preview.
Note: The author is a proponent of the perpetual virginity Mary, but concedes that the grammatical/syntactical evidence regarding Matthew 1:25 militates strongly against it.
Note: See further: Eric Svendsen’s Ph.D. Dissertation, “Who Is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and in Roman Catholicism,” [Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit Vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys, 2001], pp. 30-40, 229-250, 251-259.
Cf. Eric D. Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism, [Amityville: Calvary Press, 2001].
Note: See further: Appendix: Every Occurrence of ἕως οὗ in the New Testament (below).
Note: See further: Appendix: Every Occurrence of ἕως ὅτου in the New Testament (below).
In addition to the lexical/syntactical argumentation provided above the general context of Matthew 1:25 seems to mediate against the Roman Catholic claim.
William Hendriksen:
The meaning of the words “took his wife into his home” becomes clear when this expression is compared with verse 18: “before they had begun to live together.” See on that verse and also on verse 20. Though Joseph and Mary were now together in the same home, they had no sexual relations with each other until Mary had given birth to Jesus. Why this was so is not related. Could this decision have been motivated by the couple’s high regard for that which had been conceived? Or did they abstain to be able to refute every allegation that Joseph himself was the father of the child? Whatever it was that prompted the couple to refrain from having sexual intercourse, there is every reason to suppose that after the child’s birth the abstention did not continue. …the case against Mary’s perpetual virginity is strengthened by these considerations: a. According to both the Old and the New Testament sexual intercourse for married couples is divinely approved (Gen. 1:28; 9:1; 24:60; Prov. 5:18; Ps. 127:3; 1 Cor. 7:5, 9). Of course, even here, as in all things, self-control should be exercised. Incontinence is definitely condemned (I Cor. 7:5; Gal. 5:22, 23). But no special sanctity attaches to total abstention or celibacy. b. We are definitely told that Jesus had brothers and sisters, evidently together with him members of one family (Matt. 12:46, 47; Mark 3:31, 32; 6:3; Luke 8:19, 20; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14). c. Luke 2:7 informs us that Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn.” Though in and by itself this third argument may not be sufficient to prove that Jesus had uterine brothers, in connection with arguments a. and b. the evidence becomes conclusive. The burden of proof rests entirely on those who deny that after Christ’s birth Joseph and Mary entered into all the relationships commonly associated with marriage.
(William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973], pp. 144, 144-145.)
Cf. Ben Witherington III:
There are no good reasons to reject the Helvidian view, and many good reasons to commend it, since it allows one to take not only ἀδελφός but also ἕως οὗ in Mt. 1.25 and the meaning of Lk. 1.34 in their most natural sense. As Taylor says, ‘It may also be fairly argued ... that the expressions used in Lk. ii.7 and Mt. i.25 would have been avoided by writers who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.’
(Ben Witherington III, Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus’ Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life, [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], p. 92.)
Cf. Vincent Taylor:
It may also be fairly argued, as Lightfoot, 271, concedes, that the expressions used in Lk. ii. 7 and Mt. i. 25 would have been avoided by writers who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
(Vincent Taylor, Thornapple Commentaries: The Gospel According to St. Mark: Second Edition, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981], p. 249.)
Cf. Alexander Balmain Bruce:
Subsequent intercourse was the natural, if not the necessary, course of things. If the evangelist had felt as the Catholics do, he would have taken pains to prevent misunderstanding.
(Alexander Balmain Bruce, “The Synoptic Gospels;” In: The Expositor’s Greek Testament: Volume I, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, [New York: Dod, Mead and Company, 1902], p. 69.)
Cf. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer:
…that it is here conceived as subsequently taking place, is so clear of itself to every unprejudiced reader from the idea of the marriage arrangement, that Matthew must have expressed the thought, “not only until—but afterwards also he had not,” if such had been his meaning.
(Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Part I: The Gospel of Matthew: Volume I, trans. Peter Christie, revised and edited by William P. Dickson and Frederick Crombie, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880], p. 76.)
Cf. Philip Schaff, Matthew B. Riddle:
…Matthew, with the whole history of Christ before him, would scarcely have used the expression, had he held the Roman Catholic notion of the perpetual virginity. It would have been easy to assert that by saying: he never knew her. Many Protestant commentators suppose that the genealogy of David found its end in Christ, and that Mary could not have given birth to children after having become the mother of the Saviour of the world. But this is a matter of sentiment rather than a conviction based on evidence. ‘The brethren of our Lord’ are frequently mentioned (four by name, besides sisters), in close connection with Mary, and apparently as members of her household. They are nowhere called his cousins, as some claim them to have been. They were probably either the children of Joseph by a former wife (the view of some Greek fathers), or the children of Joseph and Mary (as now held by many Protestant commentators). To the first view the genealogy of Joseph seems an insuperable objection; for the oldest son by the former marriage would have been his legal heir, and the genealogy out of place.
(Philip Schaff, Matthew B. Riddle, “The Gospel of Matthew;” In: The International Illustrated Commentary on the New Testament: In Four Volumes: Vol. I, ed. Philip Schaff, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889], p. 32.)
Cf. R. T. France:
Matthew does not explain Joseph’s abstinence, but it is not hard to understand it in the light of the assurance that Mary was pregnant “through the Holy Spirit.” If Matthew has an apologetic reason for inserting this statement, it is presumably to take away any doubt as to the supernatural origin of Mary’s child. Nothing in his text suggests that he subscribed to the later idea of Mary’s “perpetual virginity,” and indeed the “until” most naturally indicates that after Jesus was born normal marital relations began (as indeed the straightforward sense of Jesus having “brothers and sisters” requires, 13:55-56; cf. Luke 2:7, “her firstborn son”).
(R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2007], pp. 58-59.)
Cf. Ulrich Luz:
Overwhelming probability, however, suggests that such a thought was alien to Matthew. Since the perpetual virginity of Mary would have been considered very unusual by his readers, Matthew would have had to express it explicitly.
(Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Continental Commentary, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss, [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992], p. 125.)
Cf. Robert H. Gundry:
From the redaction-critical standpoint, however, later references to Jesus’ brothers (12:46, 47; 13:55) and sisters (13:56) do favor such an implication. The delay in sexual union suits Joseph’s original hesitation and preserves the virginity of the birth.
(Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982], p. 25.)
Cf. Frederick Dale Bruner:
I wish to point to one other important fact. It would seem that if Matthew’s God had wanted to give signal honor to the state of virginity, he would have called a young woman who had made a decision to remain in the virginal state. But this is not the case. The angel visited Mary “when she was engaged to Joseph” (1:18). The divine visitation comes to a fiancée, not a nun. A frequent depiction of Mary is that of a maiden resolutely determined to have no sexual relations with men. But in this paragraph Matthew introduces us to the story of a young woman who plans, and enters, marriage. We meet an engaged woman at the beginning of the paragraph and a fully married one at the end. Perpetual virginity — either as a decision prior to Joseph or as a discipline after her delivery — seems far from the mind of the woman and of the evangelist who wrote about her. Mary is not only “the blessed virgin” in the sense we usually think; she is also “the blessed fiancée.” Mary’s decision to marry seems not to have been an obstacle to the divine call; it seems to have been even an advantage, for in the second chapter Joseph is a real protector of his family.
Nor are we told that Joseph was warned never to touch Mary. On the contrary: “Joseph . . . don’t be afraid to take Mary as your wife”; and “Joseph did not have personal intimacy with Mary until. . . .” What has been done by the well-meaning to protect Mary’s perpetual virginity — before in her attitude toward marriage, and afterward in her husband’s relation to her — seems to be countered by the biblical texts. We are not taught that Mary rejected sex or that Joseph rejected marriage; we are told things quite different by the simpler and, I think, nobler nativity stories. Mary’s full marriage will make her less godlike. But in my opinion this normalization of Mary dignifies her: she becomes a real woman rather than a plaster saint, a true and therefore a model mother. (A human Mary like a human Scripture actually dignifies both. Both bear the divine into the world, and both remain entirely human in the process.) By Mary’s normal marriage the sexual relation receives a smart salute, a salute that would have been missing in the Christmas story if we had known only of Mary’s virginal conception. If Christian men and women are to be full men and women in life, we must begin by letting Mary be a full human being in Scripture. If God is to be treated as God — and God alone — then Mary must be treated as a human being and as a human being alone. Both theologically and ethically, then, it is important to allow Mary to be what she is in Matthew: the virgin mother of Jesus and subsequently the full wife of Joseph.
(Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary: Volume 1: The Christbook: Matthew 1-12: Revised and Expanded Edition, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004], pp. 50-51.)
Cf. Leon Morris:
…in both Old and New Testaments such intercourse is approved and viewed as an integral part of marriage (Gen. 1:28; 9:1; Prov. 5:18; 1 Cor. 7:3-5).
(Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1992], p. 32.)
Matthew 1:25:
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.
(Matthew 1:25; In: Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament: 28th Edition, [Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012].) [bold added]
Joseph B. Mayor:
Laurent remarks on the use of the imperfect ἐγίνωσκεν implying abstinence from a habit (‘refrained from conjugal intercourse’) as opposed to the far more usual ἔγνω denoting a single act.
(Joseph B. Mayor, “Brethren of the Lord;” In: A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing With Its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology: Volume I, ed. James Hastings, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923], p. 323 fn.)
Note: See further: J. C. M. Laurent, Neutestamentliche Studien, [Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1866], p. 166.
Cf. Willoughby C. Allen:
The imperfect ἐγίνωσκεν is against the tradition of perpetual virginity.
(Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew, The International Critical Commentary, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907], p. 10.)
Cf. Alfred Plummer:
In ‘he knew her not’ (οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτήν), the imperfect tense is important. It is against the tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary. This has been questioned; but it hardly needs argument that, in such a context, ‘he used not to’ or ‘he was not in the habit of’ means more than ‘he did not.’ It is quite true that the aorist, ‘he knew her not until,’ would have implied that she subsequently had children by him. But the imperfect implies this still more strongly. “The meaning of ver. 25 seems clear if only we could approach the subject without prepossessions” (Wright, Syzopsis, p. 259). As Zahn points out, Mt. wrote in Palestine for Jews and Jewish Christians, and he would know whether ‘the brethren’ of the Lord were the sons of Mary or not. Seeing how anxious he is to glorify the Messiah, and how jealously he avoids whatever might seem to detract from His glory, it cannot have been a matter of indifference to him whether the Messiah was Mary’s only child or not. If he knew that she had no other child, he would have made this clear with eager reverence. Instead of making it clear that the Messiah was the only being who could call her His Mother, he uses an expression which inevitably suggests and naturally implies that she had children by Joseph.
(Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew, [London: Elliott Stock, 1909], p. 9.)
Cf. A. T. Robertson:
Knew her not till. The only natural meaning of this language is that Joseph did live with Mary as husband with wife after the birth of the child Jesus, though not before. The imperfect tense in the Greek makes the point still plainer. The brothers and sisters of Jesus (Matt. 13:55f.) are therefore probably the children of Joseph and Mary, born after Jesus, and strictly half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus.
(A. T. Robertson, Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, [New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911], pp. 60-61.)
3. Luke 2:7. Return to Outline.
Luke 2:7:
and she gave birth to her firstborn [πρωτότοκον] son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Joseph Henry Thayer:
…had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱὸν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱὸν μονογενῆ would have been used…
(Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1887], “ἀδελφός,” p. 10.)
Cf. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer:
…the evangelist employed πρωτότοκον as an historian, from the standpoint of the time when his Gospel was composed, and consequently could not have used it had Jesus been present to his historical consciousness as the only son of Mary. But Jesus, according to Matthew (xii.46ff., xii.56f.), had also brothers and sisters, amongst whom He was the firstborn.
(Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Part I: The Gospel of Matthew: Volume I, trans. Peter Christie, revised and edited by William P. Dickson and Frederick Crombie, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880], p. 76.)
Cf. Matthew B. Riddle, Philip Schaff:
Her first born son. This implies that Mary had other children (in Matt. I. 25 the reading is in dispute). It is unlikely that an only child would be thus termed by one who wrote long afterwards with a full knowledge of the family. See on Matt. xiii. 55. — Luke says nothing to justify the legends of a birth without pain, and the many other fancies which have been added to the story.
(Matthew B. Riddle, Philip Schaff, “The Gospel of Luke;” In: The International Illustrated Commentary on the New Testament: In Four Volumes: Vol. I, ed. Philip Schaff, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889], p. 353.)
Cf. Henry Alford:
…it must be here remarked, that although the term may undoubtedly be used of an only child, such use is necessarily always connected with the expectation of others to follow, and can no longer have place when the whole course of events is before the writer and no others have followed. The combination of this consideration with the fact that brethren of our Lord are brought forward in this Gospel in close connexion with His mother, makes it as certain as any implied fact can be, that those brethren were the children of Mary herself.
(Henry Alford, The Greek Testament: In Four Volumes: Vol. I: The Four Gospels: Seventh Edition, [London: Rivingtons, 1874], p. 457.)
Cf. Joseph B. Mayor:
We have still to examine two crucial passages which have to be set aside before we can accept either the Epiphanian or the Hieronymian theory: Mt 124 Ἰωσὴφ . . . παρέλαβεν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν, and Lk 27 καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον. Reading these in connexion with those other passages which speak of the brothers and sisters of Jesus, it is hard to believe that the evangelists meant us to understand, or indeed that it ever entered their heads that the words could be understood to mean, anything else than that these brothers were sons of the mother and the reputed father of the Lord. …The natural inference drawn from the use of the word πρωτότοκον in Lk 27 is that other brothers or sisters were born subsequently; otherwise why should not the word μονογενής have been used as in To 315 μονογενής εἰμι τῷ πατρί μου, Lk 712 842 etc.? In Ro 829 the word is used metaphorically, but retains its natural connotation, πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, and so in every instance of its occurrence in the NT. …There are also circumstances connected with one remarkable episode in our Lord’s childhood which are more easily explicable if we suppose Him not to have been His mother’s only son. Is it likely that Mary and Joseph would have been so little solicitous about an only son, and that son the promised Messiah, as to begin their homeward journey after the feast of the Passover at Jerusalem, and to travel for a whole day, without taking the pains to ascertain whether He was in their company or not? If they had several younger children to attend to, we can understand that their first thoughts would have been given to the latter; otherwise is it conceivable that Mary, however complete her confidence in her eldest son, should first have lost Him from her side, and then have allowed so long & time to elapse without an effort to find Him?
(Joseph B. Mayor, “Brethren of the Lord;” In: A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing With Its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology: Volume I, ed. James Hastings, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923], p. 323.)
Wilhelm Michaelis:
Lk. 2:7 says of Mary, the mother of Jesus: καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον. This is the only instance in the NT where, through the paronomastic use of τίκτειν, πρωτότοκος refers unequivocally to the process of birth, and this in the natural sense. It is hard to say what the special point of describing the newborn child as πρωτότοκος is. It is unlikely that 2:7 is simply preparing the way for 2:22 ff., for though express reference is made to Ex. 13 in the story of the presentation the word πρωτότοκος, suggested by Ex. 13:2 (not 13:12), is not used there. One may conjecture that the stress on the fact that Jesus was the firstborn son of His mother is related to the emphatic reference to the virginity of Mary in 1:27, 34. If so, the main point of the πρωτότοκος is “to rule out earlier children” rather than “to contrast the child Jesus with later children of Mary.” If we did not have other accounts of the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters (→ I, 144, 16 ff.) the wording of Lk. 2:7 would hardly be enough to warrant the latter conclusion, for the firstborn is called πρωτότοκος because he is the first, whether or not other children follow later. On the other hand πρωτότοκος does very generally include the possibility and even the expectation that other children will follow, → V, 834, 16 ff. Hence πρωτότοκος in Lk. 2:7 cannot have the sense of μονογενής (→ IV, 737, 22 ff.) or rule out the possibility that Mary had other children.
(Wilhelm Michaelis, “πρῶτος, πρῶτον, πρωτοκαθεδρία, πρωτοκλισία, πρωτότοκος, πρωτοτοκεῖα, πρωτεύω;” In: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume VI, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. & ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971], pp. 876-877.)
4. Brothers and Sisters. Return to Outline.
Matthew 13:55-56:
Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers [ἀδελφοὶ] James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not his sisters [ἀδελφαὶ] all with us? Where did this man get all this?”
Cf. Mark 6:3; cf. Matthew 12:46-50; 13:55-56; Luke 8:19-21; Mark 3:31-35; 6:3; John 2:12; 7:1-10; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; Jude 1-2; 1-Corinthians 9:5.
Adam Clarke:
It is possible that “brethren” and “sisters” may mean here near relations . . . but I confess it does not appear to me likely. Why should the children of another family be brought in here to share a reproach which it is evident was designed for Joseph the carpenter, Mary his wife, Jesus their son, and their other children? Prejudice apart, 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? It seems odd that this should be doubted; but, through an unaccountable prejudice, Papists and Protestants are determined to maintain as a doctrine that on which the Scriptures are totally silent, namely, the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord.
(Adam Clarke, The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: Volume I.—The Gospels and Acts, ed. Daniel Curry, [New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883], p. 83.)
Note: While it is true that it is technically possible that the term ἀδελφός could be translated as nephew (probably not cousin) rather than brother (cf. Genesis 14:14; 29:12; Leviticus 10:4; in the LXX); context is the primary proponent in the determination of meaning, not lexicography. The context of the New Testament seems to militate against such an understanding (cf. Matthew 12:46-50; 13:55-56; Luke 8:19-21; Mark 3:31-35; 6:3; John 2:12; 7:1-10; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; Jude 1-2; 1-Corinthians 9:5).
The New Testament authors differentiate between ἀδελφός (brothers) and συγγενής (relatives).
Luke 8:19-21:
Then his mother and his brothers [ἀδελφοὶ] came to him but were unable to join him because of the crowd. He was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside and they wish to see you.” He said to them in reply, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it.”
Cf. Luke 1:36:
And behold, Elizabeth, your relative [συγγενίς], has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren;
Cf. Luke 1:58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Acts 10:24).
See also: Mark 6:4; John 18:26; Romans 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21—See also Paul’s use of ἀνεψιὸς (cousin) in Colossians 4:10.
Similarly, differentiation is made between Jesus’ disciples and his brothers, the latter being paired with his mother.
Acts 1:13-14:
When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these [οὗτοι πάντες] devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers [ἀδελφοῖς].
Cf. John 2:12; 7:5; 1-Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19.
Philip Schaff:
1. The brothers of Jesus, four in number, and bearing the names Jacob or James, Joseph (or Joses), Simon, and Jude, are mentioned with or without their names, fourteen or fifteen times in the N. T. (not ten times, as Alford in loc. says), twice in connection with sisters (whose number and names are not recorded), viz., twelve times in the Gospels, Matt. xii. 46, 47; xiii. 55, 56 (ἀδελφοί and ἀδελφαί); Mark iii. 31, 32; vi. 3 (here the sisters are likewise introduced); Luke viii. 19, 20; John vii. 3, 5, 10;—once in the Acts i. 14;—and once by St. Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 5, to which must be added Gal. i. 19, where James of Jerusalem is called “the brother of the Lord.” Besides, the Saviour Himself speaks several times of His brothers (brethren), but apparently in a wider sense of the term, Matt. xii. 48, 49, 50; Mark iii. 33, 34, 35; Matt. xxviii. 10; John xx. 17.
In the former fourteen or fifteen passages it is agreed on all hands that the term brothers must be taken more or less literally of natural affinity, and not metaphorically or spiritually, in which sense all Christians are brethren. The question is only, whether the term means brothers proper, or cousins, according to a somewhat wider usage of the Hebrew אָח.
2. The exegetical or grammatical (though not perhaps the dogmatical) a priori presumption is undoubtedly in favor of the usual meaning of the word, the more so since no parallel case of a wider meaning of ἀδελφός (except the well-known and always apparent metaphorical, which is out of the question in our case), can be quoted from the New Testament. Even the Hebrew אָח is used only twice in a wider sense, and then only extended to nephew (not to cousin), viz., Gen. xiii. 8; xiv. 16; of Abraham and Lot, who was his brother’s son (xi. 27, 31), and Gen. xxix. 12, 15, of Laban and Jacob his sister’s son (comp. ver. 13). Here there can be no mistake. The cases are therefore not strictly parallel with ours.
3. There is no mention anywhere of cousins or kinsmen of Jesus according to the flesh; and yet the term ἀνεψιός, consobrinus, cousin, is well known to the N. T. vocabulary (compare Col. iv. 10, where Mark is called a cousin of Barnabas); so also the more exact term υἱὸς τῆς ἀδελφῆς, sister’s son (comp. Acts 23:16, of Paul’s cousin in Jerusalem); and the more general term συγγενής, kinsman, relative, occurs not less than eleven times (Mark vi. 4; Luke i. 36, 58; ii. 44; xiv. 12; xxi. 16; John xviii. 26; Acts x. 24; Rom. ix. 3; xvi. 7, 11, 21).
Now, if the brothers of Jesus were merely His cousins (either sons of a sister of Mary, as is generally assumed, or of a brother of Joseph, as Dr. Lange maintains), the question may well be asked: Why did the sacred historians not in a single instance call them by their right name, ἀνεψιοί, or υἱοὶ τῆς ἀδελφῆς τῆς Μαρίας, or τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ ᾿Ιωσήφ, or at least more generally συγγενεῖς?[fn. *: Hegesippus (ap. Euseb. H. E. iv. 22) speaks of cousins of Christ, calling Simeon, the successor of James in Jerusalem: ἀνεφιὸν τοῦ Κυρίου δεύτερον.] By doing this they would have at once prevented all future confusion among commentators: while by uniformly using the term ἀδελφοί, without the least intimation of a wider meaning, they certainly suggest to every unbiased reader the impression that real brothers are intended.
4. In all the passages where brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned, except in John vii. (where they are represented in conflict with the Lord), and 1 Cor. ix. (which was written probably after the death of Mary), they appear in close connection with Him and His mother Mary as being under her care and direction, and as forming one family. This is certainly surprising and unaccountable, if they were cousins. Why do they never appear in connection with their own supposed mother, Mary the wife of Clopas (or Alphæus), who was living all the time, and stood under the cross (Matt. xxvii. 56; John xix. 25), and at the sepulchre (Matt. xxvii. 61)?
Lange calls to his aid the double hypothesis of an early death of Clopas (whom he assumes to have been the brother of Joseph [fn. *: Hegesippus (in Eusebius’ H. E. iii. 11) asserts that Clopas was the brother of Joseph. Lange denies that Mary, the wife of Clopas, was the sister of the Virgin Mary. But Lich- tenstein (Lebensgeschichte des Herrn, Erlangen, 1856, p. 124) assumes, that the two brothers, Joseph and Clopas, married two sisters, both named Mary, Clopas dying, Joseph took his wife and her children into his family. Schneckenburger reverses the hypothesis and assumes that Mary, after the early death of Joseph, moved to the household of her sister, the wife of Clopas.]), and the adoption of his children by the parents of Jesus, so that they became legally His brothers and sisters. But this adoption, if true, could not destroy their relation to their natural mother, Mary, who was still living, and one of the most faithful female followers of Christ. Besides, both the assumption of the early death of Clopas and the adoption of his children by Joseph, is without the shadow of either exegetical or traditionary evidence, and is made extremely improbable by the fact of the poverty of the holy family, who could not in justice to themselves and to their own Son adopt at least half a dozen children at once (four sons and two or more daughters), especially when their own mother was still living at the time. We would have to assume that the mother likewise, after the death of her husband, lived with the holy family. But would she have given up in this case, or under any circumstances, the claim and title to, and the maternal care of, her own children? Certainly not. The more we esteem this devoted disciple, who attended the Saviour to the cross and the sepulchre (Matt. xxvii. 56, 61; John xix. 25), the less we can think her capable of such an unmotherly and unwomanly act.
5. There is no intimation anywhere in the New Testament, either by direct assertion or by implication (unless it be the disputed passage on James, in Gal. i. 19), that the brothers of Christ, or any of them, were of the number of the twelve Apostles. This is a mere inference from certain facts and combinations, which we shall consider afterward, viz., the identity of three names, James, Simon and Judas, who occur among the brothers of Christ and among the Apostles, and the fact that a certain Mary, supposed to be an aunt of Jesus, was the mother of James and Joses (but she is never called the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude), and with the fact of the eminent, Apostle-like position of James, the brother of the Lord, in the church at Jerusalem.
6. On the contrary, the brothers of Jesus are mentioned after the Apostles, and thus distinguished from them. In Acts i. 13, 14, Luke first enumerates the eleven by name, and then adds: “These all [the Apostles] continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren.” Here they seem to form a distinct class with their mother, next to the Apostles. So also 1 Cor. ix. 5 : οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου. Such distinct mention of the brothers after the Apostles was not justified if three of the four, as is assumed by the cousin theory, were themselves Apostles; consequently, only one remained to make a separate class. The narrative, Matt. xii. 46-50, likewise implies that the brothers of Jesus who stood without, seeking to speak with Him, were distinct from the disciples (ver. 69), who always surrounded Him.
7. More than this: before the resurrection of Christ, His brothers are represented in the Gospel of John, in ch. vii. 3-10, long after the call of the Apostles, as unbelievers, who endeavored to embarrass the Saviour and to throw difficulties in His way. This makes it morally impossible to identify them with the Apostles. Even if only one or two of the four had been among the twelve at that time, John could not have made the unqualified remark: “Neither did His brethren (brothers) believe in Him” (vii. 5); for faith is the very first condition of the apostolate. Nor would Christ in this case have said to them: “My time has not yet come; but your time is always ready; the world cannot hate you; but Me it hateth” (vers. 6, 7); nor would He have separated from them in His journey to Jerusalem. It will not do here to weaken the force of πιστεύειν, and to reduce their unbelief to a mere temporary wavering and uncertainty. The case of Peter, Matt. xvi. 23, and that of Thomas, John xx. 25, are by no means parallel. The whole attitude of the brothers of Christ, as viewed by Christ and described by John, is entirely inconsistent with that of an apostle. It is an attitude not of enemies, it is true, but of doubtful, dissatisfied friends, who assume an air of superiority, and presume to suggest to Him a worldly and ambitious policy. After the resurrection they are expressly mentioned among the believers, but as a distinct class with Mary, next to the Apostles.
All these considerations strongly urge the conclusion that the brothers of Christ were real brothers, according to the flesh, i. e., either later sons of Mary and Joseph, or sons of Joseph by a former marriage (more of this below), unless there are very serious difficulties in the way, which make this conclusion either critically, or morally, or religiously impossible.
(Philip Schaff; In: Johann Peter Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical: The Gospel According to Matthew, trans. & ed., Philip Schaff, [New York: Charles Scribner, 1865], pp. 256-257.)
Ben Witherington III:
Traditionally, there have been three main views concerning the relation of these brothers and sisters to Jesus, to which have been added various modifications. The view most widely held in the Western Church is that of St Jerome, first put forth in a treatise against Helvidius in A.D. 382. He asserts that the Lord’s brethren are cousins, being the children of Mary’s sister. The Helvidian view which prompted Jerome’s new approach to the problem says that they were Jesus’ actual brothers, being the children of Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The third view was put forth by Epiphanius in A.D. 376-7. He held that the brothers of Jesus were children of Joseph by a previous marriage. This latter view drew on certain statements in earlier apocryphal Christian documents but was fully presented first by Epiphanius himself. Each view has problems and all were formulated in their more or less final forms between A.D. 375 and 385. The Hieronymian view seems the least likely for the following reasons: (1) The noun ἀδελφός seldom if ever is used in the NT to mean ἀνεψιὸς (cf. Col. 3.10), nor in the classical usage of ἀδελφός is there much if any evidence that it was used to mean ‘cousin’. (2) This view claims that James, the brother of the Lord = one of the Twelve = James the Less, son of Alphaeus; indeed, it has been claimed by some Catholic scholars that all the brothers of the Lord were among the Twelve or the disciples except for Joses. This contradicts the explicit evidence of Mk 3.21, 31-5, and Jn 7.5. (3) Jerome also inferred from the μικρός used with James (son of Alphaeus?) that this meant James the Less to distinguish him from James, the Apostle and son of Zebedee. The word μικρός, however, is not used in a comparative but a positive sense as ‘the little’. Further, there is no Scriptural support for calling James, the son of Zebedee, ‘the great’. (4) One must maintain not only a questionable punctuation of Jn 19.25, but also the improbability that two sisters would have the same name in order to assert that Mary of Clopas was the sister of Mary, mother of Jesus.
The Epiphanian view is more probable than the Hieronymian though there are convincing reasons for rejecting it as well. (1) If Joseph previously had other sons, then Jesus could not have been legally his first born or first in line for the Davidic throne. (2) ‘Epiphanius’ evidence is wholly based on apocryphal gospels, and everyone knows that for all his diligence in collecting fragments of tradition and local gossip, he was not exactly critical in his assessment of the material collected.’ (3) It appears that Lightfoot or his predecessors in the Epiphanian view may have derived their view from a misreading of ancient texts.
…We are left with the Helvidian view which admittedly has problems, though none are insurmountable. Bishop Lightfoot’s objection that Jesus would never commend His mother to a stranger (Jn 19.26-7) rather than His own physical brother(s) is not obvious. As noted in Mk 3.31-5, Jesus is insistent that the family of faith take precedence over the physical family (cf. Mk 10.29-30), and thus it is more natural (if Jn 19.26-7 is of historical value) for Jesus to entrust His dearest relative to His dearest friend since they were united in the bond of faith.
There is little evidence that tells us whether or not the brothers in Mk 6.3 and the men in Mk 15.40 are different or the same; however, James and Joses are common names and they could easily be two different sets of brothers. Further, perhaps the fact that the James of Mk 15.40 is called μικρός does distinguish him from the James of Mk 6.3 who receives no such title. Finally, it cannot be argued on the basis of the fact that some called Jesus the son of Joseph that Jesus was related to His brothers in the same way as He was related to His legal father (Joseph). This overlooks the fact that in the reference to Jesus as the son of Joseph, none of those on whose lips we find the term were in a position to know about the virginal conception (Mt. 13.55, Mk 6.3 p45, Lk. 4.22, Jn 1 .45, 6.42). In the one reference where the comment comes from a Gospel writer himself (Lk.3.23), it is tactfully qualified by the phrase ὡς ἐνομίζετο. There are no good reasons to reject the Helvidian view, and many good reasons to commend it, since it allows one to take not only ἀδελφός but also ἕως οὗ in Mt. 1.25 and the meaning of Lk. 1.34 in their most natural sense. As Taylor says, ‘It may also be fairly argued ... that the expressions used in Lk. ii.7 and Mt. i.25 would have been avoided by writers who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.’
(Ben Witherington III, Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus’ Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life, [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], pp. 89-90, 91-92.)
J. B. Lightfoot:
The instances alleged notwithstanding, the sense thus assigned to “brethren” seems to be unsupported by biblical usage. In an affectionate and earnest appeal intended to move the sympathies of the hearer, a speaker might not unnaturally address a relation or a friend, or even a fellow-countryman, as his “ brother.” And even when speaking of such to a third person he might through warmth of feeling and under certain aspects so designate him. But it is scarcely conceivable that the cousins of any one should be commonly, and indeed exclusively, styled his “brothers” by indifferent persons; still less, that one cousin in particular should be singled out and described in this loose way: “James the Lord’s brother.”
…But again: the Lord’s brethren are mentioned in the Gospels in connection with Joseph his reputed father and Mary his mother, never once with Mary of Clopas (the assumed wife of Alphaeus). It would surely have been otherwise, if the latter Mary were really their mother.
(J. B. Lightfoot, “The Brethren of the Lord;” In: J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, [Andover, Warren F. Draper, 1870], pp. 97, 98.)
Note: See further: Joseph B. Mayor, “Brethren of the Lord;” In: A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing With Its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology: Volume I, ed. James Hastings, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923], pp. 320-326.
L. R. Keylock:
It would be nice if some all-encompassing solution could now be proposed to the questions which the NT texts raise. In ecumenical circles a more widespread espousal of the stepbrother theory by both Protestants and Catholics can be anticipated, since it seems to be relatively acceptable to both groups, has tradition in its favor, avoids the many unprovable assumptions of the cousin theory that Catholic Biblical scholars now find difficult to accept, and yet does not force Catholics to abandon traditional and magisterial teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Nevertheless in the long run, without getting into the even more complex philosophical problems raised by Kant, it seems likely that the truth lies with a recognition of the brothers as full brothers of Jesus, and sons of Mary and Joseph.
1. When the NT statements are taken collectively and a minimum of assumptions are made, the prima facie conclusion is almost unavoidable that the brothers of Jesus were Mary’s own sons. In the past a lot of weight was placed on the possibility of various hypotheses in theology; today’s theologian tends to argue far more in terms of probabilities. From such a perspective it seems highly probable that the NT does not mean cousins and reasonably probable that it does not mean stepbrothers when it speaks of “brothers” of Jesus;
2. Arguments based on the thesis that only older brothers would act as Jesus’ brothers acted toward Him fail to take into account the way brothers of any age might act when confronted with a highly unusual person like Jesus;
3. As far as church tradition is concerned Karl Rahner would seem to be on the right track when he says we must not merely repeat the words of the church fathers but we must rather attempt to understand what they are trying to say in terms of the thought patterns of their day. What emotional and intellectual hunger was satisfied by the adoption of a belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, for example? Only if we can answer this question will we be able to understand why the Western Church rejected the idea of the brothers of Jesus as physical brothers;
4. Little weight can be placed on the occurrence of identical names in two families, esp. when the names are as common as James, Jude and Simon;
5. Form criticism should teach us not to conclude that if Mary had younger children she must have left them home to attend the Jerusalem Passover on Jesus’ twelfth birthday. The only relevant conclusion we can draw from this pericope is that we are told nothing about Jesus’ siblings because they have no part to play in the story;
6. Finally, John 19:27 is really a crux interpretationem for all three theories because none of them can really explain it satisfactorily. Whether they are brothers, stepbrothers or cousins in Mary’s constant company, it is strange that John rather than one of Jesus’ brothers would take Mary into his home. With the fourth gospel’s penchant for symbolism we are perhaps justified in seeking a non-literal solution.
(L. R. Keylock, “Brothers of Jesus, The;” In: The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible: Volume One, gen. ed. Merrill C. Tenny, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976], pp. 665-666.)
Msgr. John P. Meier (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian; Honorary Prelate of the Papal Household—John Paul II):
…if—prescinding from faith and later Church teaching—the historian or exegete is asked to render a judgment on the NT and patristic texts we have examined, viewed simply as historical sources, the most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were true siblings.
This judgment arises first of all from the criterion of multiple attestation: Paul, Mark, John, Josephus, and perhaps Luke in Acts 1:14 speak independently of the “brother(s) of Jesus” (or the Lord). Most of their statements yoke the brothers (and at times sisters) directly with Mary the mother of Jesus in phrases like “his mother and (his) brothers.”
To this initial fact of multiple attestation of sources must then be added the natural sense of “brother(s)” in all these passages, as judged by the regular usage of Josephus and the NT. The Greek usage of Josephus distinguishes between “brother” and “cousin,” most notably when he is rewriting a biblical story to replace “brother” with the more exact “cousin.” Thus it is especially significant that Josephus, an independent 1st-century Jewish writer, calls James of Jerusalem, without further ado, “the brother of Jesus.”
In the NT there is not a single clear case where “brother” means “cousin” or even “stepbrother,” while there are abundant cases of its meaning “physical brother” (full or half). This is the natural sense of adelphos in Paul, Mark, and John; Matthew and Luke apparently followed and developed this sense. Paul’s usage is particularly important because, unlike Josephus or the evangelists, he is not simply writing about past events transmitted to him through stories in oral or written sources. He speaks of the brother(s) of the Lord as people he has known and met, people who are living even as he is writing. His use of “brother” is obviously not determined by revered, decades-long Gospel tradition whose set formulas he would be loath to change. And Paul, or a close disciple, shows that the Pauline tradition knew perfectly well the word for “cousin” (anepsios in Col 4:10). Hence, from a purely philological and historical point of view, the most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his siblings. This interpretation of the NT texts was kept alive by at least some Church writers up until the late 4th century.
(John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Volume One: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, The Anchor Bible Reference Library, [New York: Doubleday, 1991], pp. 331-332.)
5. John 19:25-27? Return to Outline.
John 19:25-27:
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
It is argued, by the modern Roman Catholic Church, that this passage (John 19:25-27) demonstrates that Mary is the spiritual mother of the Christian Church.
Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church:
It is at the hour of the New Covenant, at the foot of the cross,[fn. 90: Cf. Jn 19:25-27] that Mary is heard as the Woman, the new Eve, the true “Mother of all the living.”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition, # 2618.)
Additionally, it is argued by many Roman Catholics that Jesus’ act of giving Mary to the beloved disciple implies her perpetual virginity. For, it is asserted, if Mary had other children surely Jesus would have entrusted her to them rather than to a disciple who was not a close blood relative.
There are several problems with this line of reasoning.
(1.) It proves too much. If the ἀδελφός (brothers) who were constantly accompanying Mary were in fact Jesus’ cousins, then why did our Lord not entrust Mary to them rather than to the beloved disciple? Would not the obligation of caring for His mother have fallen upon close blood relatives rather than a friend? If the Roman Catholic argument were shown to be veracious it would not prove that Jesus had no siblings, rather it would prove that he had no close relatives at all.
Cf. John A. Broadus:
It would seem strange that Jesus on the cross should commit his mother to a friend, when she had sons. But this would hold against the other theories also, and even more strongly against the cousin-theory…
(John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, An American Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Alvah Hovey, [Valley Forge: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1886], p. 311.)
(2.) The argument does not comport with Jesus’ own understanding of what it means to be in His family.
Cf. Luke 8:20-21:
He was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside and they wish to see you.” He said to them in reply, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it.”
Even Rome admits as much: “The family of Jesus is not constituted by physical relationship with him but by obedience to the word of God.” (New American Bible, note on Luke 8:21.) See also: vatican.va (the official Vatican website).
Cf. John 7:5:
For his brothers [ἀδελφοὶ] did not believe in him.
Mary was most likely given over to the care of the beloved disciple, the only one of the disciples present at His crucifixion, because the beloved disciple was truly Jesus’ brother (Luke 8:21). His brothers according to the flesh, who had not yet come to faith (John 7:5) and were not present at His crucifixion, were not yet a part of His true family.
Cf. Ben Witherington III:
Bishop Lightfoot’s objection that Jesus would never commend His mother to a stranger (Jn 19.26-7) rather than His own physical brother(s) is not obvious. As noted in Mk 3.31-5, Jesus is insistent that the family of faith take precedence over the physical family (cf. Mk 10.29-30), and thus it is more natural (if Jn 19.26-7 is of historical value) for Jesus to entrust His dearest relative to His dearest friend since they were united in the bond of faith.
(Ben Witherington III, Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus’ Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life, [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], pp. 91-92.)
(3.) The argument has no meaningful historical precedent. This particular point is not as poignant as it once might have been, given the acceptance of John Henry Cardinal Newman’s (rather novel) theory of doctrinal development by the modern Roman Catholic Church (click here for more) and the concession by many modern Roman Catholic theologians that historical precedent (or consensus) is not the driving impetus behind Roman Catholic doctrine (click here for more).
Cf. Michael O’Carroll, C.S.Sp. (Roman Catholic Historian and Mariologist):
That the Mother of God is our Mother has been for centuries a truth totally accepted by teaching and believing Catholics. This truth has very often been supported by the Johannine text, 19:25-27… The Fathers of the Church and early Christian writers. did not so interpret the words of the dying Christ. Development of the idea of Mary’s spiritual motherhood was slow and did not enter the consciousness of the Church until medieval times. During those early centuries, the sacred text did not immediately convey the notion. Lenghty [sic] reflection was needed to reach it…
(Michael O’Carroll, C.S.Sp., Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, [Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983], p. 253.)
E.g. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 376-444 A.D.):
He took thought for His mother, paying no heed to His own bitter agony, for His sufferings affected Him not. He gave her into the charge of the beloved disciple (this was John, the writer of this book), and bade him take her home, and regard her as a mother; and enjoined His own mother to regard him as none other than her true son—by his tenderness, that is, and affection, fulfilling and stepping into the place of Him, Who was her Son by nature.
But as some misguided men have thought that Christ, when He thus spake, gave way to mere fleshly affection—away with such folly! to fall into so stupid an error is only worthy of a madman—what good purpose, then, did Christ hereby fulfil? First, we reply, that He wished to confirm the command on which the Law lays so much stress. For what saith the Mosaic ordinance? Honour thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee. His commandment unto us did not cease with exhorting us to perform this duty, but threatened us with the extreme penalty of the Law, if we chose to disregard it, and has put sin against our parents after the flesh on a par with sin against God. For the Law which ordered that the blasphemer should undergo the sentence of death, saying: Let him that blasphemeth the Name of the Lord be put to death, also subjected to the same penalty the man who employs his licentious and unruly tongue against his parents: He that curseth father or mother shall surely be put to death. As, then, the Lawgiver hath ordained that we should pay such honour to our parents, surely it was right that the commandment thus proclaimed should be confirmed by the approval of the Saviour; and as the perfect form of every excellence and virtue through Him first came into the world, why should not this virtue be put on the same footing as the rest? For, surely, honour to parents is a very precious kind of virtue. And how could we learn that we ought not to lightly regard love toward them, even when we are overwhelmed by a flood of intolerable calamities, save by the example of Christ first of all, and through Him? For best of all, surely, is he who is mindful of the holy commandments, and is not diverted from the pursuit of duty in stormy and troublous times, and not in peace and quietness alone.
Besides, also, was not the Lord, I say, right to take thought for His mother, when she had fallen on a rock of offence, and when her mind was in a turmoil of perplexity? For, as He was truly God, and looked into the motions of the heart, and knew its secrets, how could He fail to know the thoughts about His crucifixion, which were then throwing her into sore distress? Knowing, then, what was passing in her heart, He commended her to the disciple, the best of guides, who was able to explain fully and adequately the profound mystery. For wise and learned in the things of God was he who received and took her away gladly, to fulfil all the Saviour’s Will concerning her.
(Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, 12.19, on John 19:26-27; trans. S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, Commentary on Gospel According to St. John: Vol. II, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, [London: Walter Smith, 1885], pp. 634-635.) See also: tertullian.org.
Ben Witherington III:
That He would entrust her to a disciple is not historically unlikely because: (1) there are strong reasons for thinking that He considered the family of faith His primary family (cf. Mk 3.34-5); (2) it is likely that at the time of Jesus’ death, His physical brothers were unbelievers (cf. Jn 7.5). If the beloved disciple is an ideal figure, then Jn 19.26-7 is probably a Johannine creation meant to affirm various things (which we will soon discuss) about men and women as disciples of Jesus. Even if this is so, it does not preclude the possibility that the Evangelist incorporated into this ideal scene certain historical fragments about what happened to Mary. Perhaps, the Fourth Evangelist simply had access to a traditional list of women who were present at the cross that included the name of Jesus’ mother, and he knew that Mary at some point joined Jesus’ community.
…Mary learns that she is to be a mother as a disciple, not a mother and also a disciple. Discipleship must be the larger context in which her role as mother is delimited and defined. Mary responds in silence and submission. She obeys the word of the Lord and goes with the beloved disciple. In so doing she is the model woman — a testimony to a woman’s new freedom in faith and also to a woman’s traditional roles of serving under the authority and headship of man. Her new son is the man under whose charge she now is. This is reflected in the fact that, though John is first commended to her, she does not take charge but rather is received into the charge of the beloved disciple.
…The Evangelist intends the scene to be balanced between attention given to the beloved disciple and attention given to Jesus’ mother. Both are addressed and both receive a commission. While Mary’s importance stands out here (she is addressed first and her future is considered at the end of verse 27), and it may be significant that the beloved disciple is only referred to as a son of Mary (while Mary is addressed as ‘Woman’ and referred to as mother of this disciple), throughout this scene only the beloved disciple is called ὁ μαθητὴς and it is he who takes charge of Jesus mother at the close of this scene. It should be emphasized that this disciple’s faith and his role as representative disciple, antedate Mary’s role as spiritual mother. Thus, Mary is not depicted here as the mother of the Church, but as a spiritual mother to and in the Church. ‘Initially, it is significant that the scene brings together two figures for whom John never gives us personal names. That may mean that the significance of both figures lay in their respective roles.’ It also means that the Evangelist’s focus is on these two persons as models or types. Not Mary alone, but both Mary and the beloved disciple are in a sense a foreshadowing of the Church, standing beneath the cross of their Lord.
(Ben Witherington III, Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus’ Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life, [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], pp. 93-94, 95, 96-97.)
6. The Biological Nature of Birth. Return to Outline.
In order for a baby to exit the womb of a woman—the modern Caesarean section excluded—the woman must, of necessity, cease to be a virgin.
Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):
Well, but “with God nothing is impossible.” True enough; who can be ignorant of it? Who also can be unaware that “the things which are impossible with men are possible with God?” “The foolish things also of the world hath God chosen to confound the things which are wise.” We have read it all. Therefore, they argue, it was not difficult for God to make Himself both a Father and a Son, contrary to the condition of things among men. For a barren woman to have a child against nature was no difficulty with God; nor was it for a virgin to conceive. Of course nothing is “too hard for the Lord.” But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it. God could, if He had liked, have furnished man with wings to fly with, just as He gave wings to kites. We must not, however, run to the conclusion that He did this because He was able to do it.
(Tertullian of Carthage, Against Praxeas, 10; trans. ANF, 3:604-605.) See also: ccel.org.
7. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Not of Apostolic Origin. Return to Outline.
While this doctrine (the perpetual virginity of Mary) is one which has a long historical pedigree, it is not apostolic.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):
Early church belief in Mary’s virginity was formulated by Christians in the postapostolic era, making use of an interpretation of some passages in the New Testament, but passing over others that were problematic, such as those that were quoted above (John 1:45; 6:42; 7:5; Luke 4:22). The result was that that doctrine of Mary’s virginity was not universally accepted at first, even though it was formulated in the second-century writing Protevangelium of James (8.1; 9.1-2; 13.1-16.2; 17.1-2; 18.1). Eventually, it became crystallized in the long-standing belief about Mary as neiparthenos or semper virgo, “ever virgin,” in creeds from the fourth century on.
(Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., “The James Ossuary and its Implications,” In: The Tomb of Jesus and His Family? Exploring Ancient Jewish Tombs Near Jerusalem’s Walls, ed. James H. Charlesworth, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2013], p. 332.) Preview.
A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars:
In this ascetic climate it is not surprising that the title “virgin” for Mary eventually came to mean more than virgin ante partum (virginal conception). For many authors in the third century it included her virginity post partum, i.e., perpetual virginity. In the second century, only the Protevangelium seems (by implication) to endorse the concept, in line with its overall design. The early creedal statements are still ambiguous on this point. The old Roman creed, e.g., simply says: “Born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.” But later synods determined ex Maria semper Virgine (of Mary Ever-Virgin) as the one and only correct reading of the phrase. When and how the tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity became the dominant corollary of the virgin birth remains difficult to determine. The penetrating analyses of Hugo Koch have shown that it is problematical to read the concept back into Irenaeus, Justin, or Ignatius.
…One difficulty facing the assertion of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the mention of “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus in the canonical Gospels and in Paul. In the Protevangelium, these brothers and sisters are understood as Joseph’s children by a former marriage, i.e., as Jesus’ stepbrothers and stepsisters (9:2; 17:1; 18:1). This explanation, which reappears in Clement of Alexandria was soon widely accepted and became opinio communis in the Church up to the mid-fourth century. (Jerome replaced it for the West with a different construction based on a reading of “brothers” as “cousins” or other close relatives.) There is, however, no evidence for such an interpretation at an earlier time, and one may doubt the existence of an independent tradition behind the Protevangelium at this point, even as we have seen that this work is secondary on most points. Origen, while endorsing the explanation, does not seem to regard it as old. Attributing it to the Gospel of Peter and the Protevangelium, he admits that the tradition of Jesus’ half-brothers is asserted by people eager to preserve Mary’s perpetual virginity.
The other difficulty with the concept of Mary’s perpetual Virginity is the need to assume that Joseph, the “husband” of Mary, never consummated his marriage with her. The literature of the second century does not deal with this issue directly, although those who had a docetic or ascetic understanding of Jesus’ birth presumably shared this assumption. Origen understood that the assertion of an unconsummated marriage did not have a clear warrant in the canonical writings of the NT, and so he did not argue for it exegetically. He rather considered the argument “appropriate,” as the “sane way” of thinking about Mary upon whom the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High had descended, since it allowed one to say that Mary remained the first fruit of all perpetually chaste women. Tertullian, despite his personal ascetic leanings, uncompromisingly affirmed the contrary: Jesus was virginally conceived, but Joseph and Mary did consummate their marriage, and the “brothers” of Jesus were the fruit of this union. Tertullian probably thought this to be the meaning of the biblical texts. In his anti-docetic and anti-gnostic argument he seems convinced that he is defending the true apostolic tradition against innovation.
(Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John Reumann, eds., Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars, [New York: Paulist Press, 1978], “Mary In the Literature of the Second Century,” pp. 273, 274-275.)
Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):
But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,” that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end…
(Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew, 10.17; trans. ANF, 9:424.) See also: ccel.org.
8. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Diversity of Opinions in the Early Church. Return to Outline.
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is asserted by many of the Patristic writers, however there are numerous dissenting voices.
Hegesippus the Nazarene (c. 110-180 A.D.):
The second-century writer, Hegesippus, on the other hand, mentions James “the brother [ἀδελφός] of the Lord” (Eusibius, Ecdesiastical History, 2.23), and Jude “who is said to have been the Lord’s brother [ἀδελφός] according to the flesh” (Ecclesiastical History, 3.22), as well as Simeon the son of Clopas whom Hegesippus calls the “cousin [ἀνεψιὸς] of the Lord” (Ecclesiastical History, 4.22).
(Eric Svendsen’s Ph.D. Dissertation, “Who Is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and in Roman Catholicism,” [Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit Vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys, 2001], p. 65.)
Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130-202 A.D.):
And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (“for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground”), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for “all things were made by Him,” and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin.
(Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 3.21.10; trans. ANF, 1:454.) See also: ccel.org.
Note: The parallel drawn between the newly created soil (which did not remain virgin) and Mary, and the use of the phrase As yet virgin to describe both.
Cf. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130-202 A.D.):
In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee.” For the Lord, having been born “the First-begotten of the dead,” and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.
(Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 3.22.4; trans. ANF, 1:455.) See also: ccel.org.
Note: The parallel drawn between Eve (who did not remain a virgin) and Mary, and the use of the phrase As yet virgin to describe both.
Cf. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130-202 A.D.):
For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied; and He did Himself, by the apostles, announce that the fulness of the times of the adoption had arrived, that the kingdom of heaven had drawn nigh, and that He was dwelling within those that believe on Him who was born Emmanuel of the Virgin. To this effect they testify, [saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;”...
(Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 3.21.4; trans. ANF, 1:452.) See also: ccel.org.
Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):
And therefore, when to the previous question, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” He added the answer “None but they who hear my words and do them,” He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith. Now no one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is transferred. If, therefore, He made them “His mother and His brethren” who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them?
(Tertullian of Carthage, Against Marcion, 4.19; trans. ANF, 3:378.) See also: ccel.org.
Note: Blood-relationship.
Cf. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):
Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one proclaiming a perfect priest; one exhibiting “more than a prophet,”—him, namely, who has not only preached or personally pointed out, but even baptized Christ. For who was more worthily to perform the initiatory rite on the body of the Lord, than flesh similar in kind to that which conceived and gave birth to that (body)? And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.
(Tertullian of Carthage, On Monogamy, 8; trans. ANF, 4:65.) See also: ccel.org.
Note: Monogamy and Continence, the former evidently replacing the latter.
Cf. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):
We acknowledge, however, that the prophetic declaration of Simeon is fulfilled, which he spoke over the recently-born Saviour: “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be spoken against.” The sign (here meant) is that of the birth of Christ, according to Isaiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” We discover, then, what the sign is which is to be spoken against—the conception and the parturition of the Virgin Mary, concerning which these sophists say: “She a virgin and yet not a virgin bare, and yet did not bear;” just as if such language, if indeed it must be uttered, would not be more suitable even for ourselves to use! For “she bare,” because she produced offspring of her own flesh and “yet she did not bear,” since she produced Him not from a husband’s seed; she was “a virgin,” so far as (abstinence) from a husband went, and “yet not a virgin,” as regards her bearing a child. There is not, however, that parity of reasoning which the heretics affect: in other words it does not follow that for the reason “she did not bear,” she who was “not a virgin” was “yet a virgin,” even because she became a mother without any fruit of her own womb. But with us there is no equivocation, nothing twisted into a double sense. Light is light; and darkness, darkness; yea is yea; and nay, nay; “whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son. Now, as a wife, she was under the very law of “opening the womb,” wherein it was quite immaterial whether the birth of the male was by virtue of a husband’s co-operation or not; it was the same sex that opened her womb. Indeed, hers is the womb on account of which it is written of others also: “Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.” For who is really holy but the Son of God? Who properly opened the womb but He who opened a closed one? But it is marriage which opens the womb in all cases. The virgin’s womb, therefore, was especially opened, because it was especially closed. Indeed she ought rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin, becoming a mother at a leap, as it were, before she was a wife. And what must be said more on this point? Since it was in this sense that the apostle declared that the Son of God was born not of a virgin, but “of a woman,” he in that statement recognised the condition of the “opened womb” which ensues in marriage. We read in Ezekiel of “a heifer which brought forth, and still did not bring forth.” Now, see whether it was not in view of your own future contentions about the womb of Mary, that even then the Holy Ghost set His mark upon you in this passage; otherwise He would not, contrary to His usual simplicity of style (in this prophet), have uttered a sentence of such doubtful import, especially when Isaiah says, “She shall conceive and bear a son.”
(Tertullian of Carthage, On the Flesh of Christ, 23; trans. ANF, 3:541.) See also: ccel.org.
Ludwig Ott (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):
Mary’s virginity during the birth of Jesus was contested in the Early Church by Tertullian (De carne Christi 23) and especially by Jovinian, an opponent of the Church ideal of virginal purity ; and in modern times by Rationalism (Harnack calls it: “a Gnostic invention”).
(Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible, trans. Patrick Lynch, [St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1954], p. 203.)
Cf. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):
But whenever a dispute arises about the nativity, all who reject it as creating a presumption in favour of the reality of Christ’s flesh, wilfully deny that God Himself was born, on the ground that He asked, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” Let, therefore, Apelles hear what was our answer to Marcion in that little work, in which we challenged his own (favourite) gospel to the proof, even that the material circumstances of that remark (of the Lord’s) should be considered. First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside, if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing,—who had either been known to him before, or were then and there discovered by him; although heretics.have removed this passage from the gospel, because those who were admiring His doctrine said that His supposed father, Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brethren, and His sisters, were very well known to them. But it was with the view of tempting Him, that they had mentioned to Him a mother and brethren which He did not possess. The Scripture says nothing of this, although it is not in other instances silent when anything was done against Him by way of temptation. “Behold,” it says, “a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him.” And in another passage: “The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him.” Who was to prevent its being in this place also indicated that this was done with the view of tempting Him? I do not admit what you advance of your own apart from Scripture. Then there ought to be suggested some occasion for the temptation. What could they have thought to be in Him which required temptation? The question, to be sure, whether He had been born or not? For if this point were denied in His answer, it might come out on the announcement of a temptation. And yet no temptation, when aiming at the discovery of the point which prompts the temptation by its doubtfulness, falls upon one so abruptly, as not to be preceded by the question which compels the temptation whilst raising the doubt. Now, since the nativity of Christ had never come into question, how can you contend that they meant by their temptation to inquire about a point on which they had never raised a doubt? Besides, if He had to be tempted about His birth, this of course was not the proper way of doing it,—by announcing those persons who, even on the supposition of His birth, might possibly not have been in existence. We have all been born, and yet all of us have not either brothers or mother. He might with more probability have had even a father than a mother, and uncles more likely than brothers. Thus is the temptation about His birth unsuitable, for it might have been contrived without any mention of either His mother or His brethren. It is clearly more credible that, being certain that He had both a mother and brothers, they tested His divinity rather than His nativity, whether, when within, He knew what was without; being tried by the untrue announcement of the presence of persons who were not present. But the artifice of a temptation might have been thwarted thus: it might have happened that He knew that those whom they were announcing to be “standing without,” were in fact absent by the stress either of sickness, or of business, or a journey which He was at the time aware of. No one tempts (another) in a way in which he knows that he may have himself to bear the shame of the temptation. There being, then, no suitable occasion for a temptation, the announcement that His mother and His brethren had actually turned up recovers its naturalness. But there is some ground for thinking that Christ’s answer denies His mother and brethren for the present, as even Apelles might learn. “The Lord’s brethren had not yet believed in Him.” So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before Marcion’s time; whilst there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work. Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager on a foot race or a chariot race, and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, “What are mother and brothers to me?” And did not Christ, whilst preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently, and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour—even because they listened to the word (of God)—He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him. Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if, while he was teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God, He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him! He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours—for God’s work. But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother’s “womb and paps,” but designating those as more “blessed who hear the word of God.”
(Tertullian of Carthage, On the Flesh of Christ, 7; trans. ANF, 3:527-529.) See also: ccel.org.
Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 A.D.):
In the West before Hilary—that is, up to the middle of the fourth century—there is no witness at all for the ‘semper virgo’; and that can hardly be a mere chance: see pp. 72 f. below. Hippolytus, too, regards the brothers of Jesus’ as the children of Joseph and Mary; cf. L. Mariès, Hippolyte de Rome, Sur les bénédictions d’Isaac, de Jacob et de Moïse (PO 27.1 [1954], 150f.: ‘ “Ses frères” a-t-il dit (Deut. 33.9): Ceux qui, selon la chair, étaient considérés comme étant ses frères, ceux-là, le Sauveur ne les a pas reconnus, parce qu’ils n’étaient pas véritablement frères. Certains étaient nés de la semence de Joseph, mais Lui, d’une vierge et du Saint Esprit’ = N. Bonwetsch, ‘Hippolyts Erklärung der Segnungen des Moses’ 10 (in TU 26, 1a [1904], p. 59) (one of the few early witnesses of importance whom Koch has overlooked): ‘He did [not] acknowledge as brothers those who were regarded as his brothers according to the body; the Redeemer did not acknowledge them, because in truth those [were] not his brothers who were born from Joseph through seed, but he from the Virgin and the Holy Spirit; and they regarded them as his brothers, but he did not acknowledge them.’
(Hans von Campenhausen, The Virgin Birth in the Theology of the Ancient Church, Studies in Historical Theology 2, trans. Frank Clarke, [London: SCM Press Ltd, 1964], pp. 48-49 fn. 4.)
Victorinus, Bishop of Petavium (fl. 270 A.D.):
Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel—that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.
(Jerome of Stridon, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, 19; trans. NPNF2, 6:343.) See also: ccel.org.
Note: The extant works of Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Theodotus do not contain any reference to the perpetual virginity of Mary (nor is there any reason to suspect that Jerome was in possession of any of their works which we do not possess today). Additionally, Irenaeus says nothing which would lend support to the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and much which militates against it (see above).
Cf. J. N. D. Kelly:
Jerome’s treatment enormously helped to shape both the Mariology of the Latin church and the Christian sexual ethic that was to dominate western civilisation until the Renaissance at least. But on the issues under discussion had he in fact got the better of Helvidius? The New Testament evidence is still debated, but the great majority of critical scholars are agreed that his interpretation of it, and not Jerome’s, is the correct one.[fn. 12: J. B. Mayor’s article ‘Brethren of the Lord’ in J. Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible (Edinburgh, 1898), remains one of the best discussions of the subject. For the conservative Roman Catholic case see, c.g., M. J. Lagrange, Évangile selon saint Marc (4 ed., Paris, 1947), 79-93.] Jerome’s efforts to get round the obvious meaning of the texts strike most people today as special pleading, the by-product of his prior conviction that sexual intercourse is defiling. His roll-call of orthodox fathers who supported him was a dishonest smoke-screen typical of his debating style; it is doubtful whether he had any close acquaintance with the writers he listed, more than doubtful whether they held the views he attributed to them.[fn. 13: P. Courcelle, Late Latin Writers and their Greek Sources (ET, Cambridge, Mass., 1969), 91-100, has shown how unlikely it is that Jerome knew the works of Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin at first hand. Nothing in their surviving writings suggests that they touched on the precise issues debated here.] On the general question his recital of the discomforts and humiliations of marriage, for all its brilliance as satire, is an absurdly one-sided caricature which he himself knew to be empty rhetoric;[fn. 14: Against Helvidius 20. In par. 22 he admits that he has been indulging playfully in rhetorical parody.] while his distinction between the age of the patriarchs, who obeyed God’s command in taking wives, and the Christian era, when it is best to do without them, depends on the acceptance of St Paul’s conviction that the end of all things is very close. It is significant that he made no attempt to answer Helvidius’s argument that the generation of children is an extension of the divine creativity.
(J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies, [London: Duckworth, 1975], pp. 106-107.)
Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea Mazaca (c. 330-379 A.D.): Indirect Testimony.
The words, He knew her not till she brought forth her first-born son, do indeed afford a certain ground for thinking that Mary, after acting in all sanctity as the instrument of the Lord’s birth, which was brought about by the Holy Ghost, did not refuse to her husband the customary privileges of marriage. But as for ourselves, even though this view does no violence to rational piety (εἰ καὶ μηδὲν τῷ τῆς εὐσεβείας ταραλυμαίνεται λόγῳ), for her virginity was necessary until she had fulfilled her function in connexion with the economy, whereas what happened afterwards concerns us little as not being connected with the mystery, yet since lovers of Christ cannot bear to hear that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin, we regard the testimonies (to her perpetual virginity) which we have produced as sufficient…
(S. Basilii Magni, Homilia in Sanctam Christi Generationem, 5; PG, 31:1468B; trans. C. Harris, “Brethren of the Lord;” In: A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels: Volume I: Aaron–Knowledge, ed. James Hastings, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906], p. 236 fn. Cf. JHT-TCF, 78.)
Cf. Philip J. Donnelly, S.J., S.T.D. (Roman Catholic Historian and Mariologist):
…St. Basil, in the form of a discourse on the feast of the Theophany. In this sermon, after brief remarks on the eternal generation of the Word, the author takes up his main point, which is to comment on the account of the temporal birth of Christ given by St. Matthew. The author also focuses his attention on the possibility of conjugal relations between Mary and St. Joseph after the birth of Christ; he rejects this possibility, but not by appealing to dogmatic belief; he has no consciousness of any obligation from this angle, and even generously admits that there is no such obligation; faith, he candidly admits, demands only that we believe in the permanence of Mary’s virginity up to (and including) the Incarnation; after the virginal conception there is no obligation imposed by faith. Despite this openly acknowledged freedom of opinion, the author goes on to stress that many excellent Christians – he calls them “Philochristoi” – refuse to admit that Our Lady ever had conjugal relations with St. Joseph; he accepts and espouses their view, and adds as a reason the narrative of a certain Zachary who died in defense of Mary’s honor. We may pass over this confirmatory reason, which is certainly ill-suited to prove Mary’s virginity post partum, but we should not gloss over lightly the situation revealed by such a tale being used as a proof. For, it is evident from this discourse that in a region of the Greek world, apparently Asia Minor, an important Churchman, without any doubt the Archbishop of Caesarea, St. Basil, did not hold the perpetual virginity of Mary as a dogmatic truth, nor did his metropolitan Churches.
(Philip J. Donnelly, S.J., S.T.D., “The Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God;” In: Mariology: Volume 2, ed. Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., [Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1957], pp. 276-277.)
Cf. Hans von Campenhausen:
The radical, critical Arians such as Eudoxius and Eunomius disapproved of the perpetual virginity all along, and the cautious discussions that Basil the Great devotes to this subject show that it was not generally acknowledged, even in orthodox circles. Basil was concerned, as always, to avoid any unnecessary accentuation of hostilities between rival parties in the sphere of Church law. He emphasizes that the acceptance of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not really necessary. A dogmatic judgment that simply maintained her virginity up to the birth of Jesus would be adequate, and thanks to the positive testimony in Matthew this fact remains all along beyond discussion. But Basil adds at once that the assertion that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin could not well be tolerated by devout Christians—it was, in a current expression used in the Roman Catholic Church of today, and here anticipated almost word for word, ‘piis auribus offensibile.’ Thus Basil looks afresh for proof that the apparently evidential arguments from Scripture need not necessarily be understood in that sense, and he lands back in the theory of the ‘stepbrothers’—that is, he moves in the succession of Origen. Other theologians now proceed more vigorously, and so at last a denial of the perpetual virginity generally appears as a theological absurdity and an impossibility. The final stage of the development is reached with Epiphanius. In the traditional style of the fight against heretics, he constructs for himself a sect of ‘Antidicomarianites’, who, of course, can have been induced only by the most sinister motives to defame the holy Virgin by casting doubt on her perpetual virginity.
(Hans von Campenhausen, The Virgin Birth in the Theology of the Ancient Church, Studies in Historical Theology 2, trans. Frank Clarke, [London: SCM Press Ltd, 1964], pp. 64-65.)
Jovinian (4th Century A.D.):
Mary’s virginity during the birth of Jesus was contested in the Early Church by Tertullian (De carne Christi 23) and especially by Jovinian, an opponent of the Church ideal of virginal purity ; and in modern times by Rationalism (Harnack calls it: “a Gnostic invention”).
Jovinian’s teaching (virgo concepit, sed non virgo generavit) was rejected at a Synod at Milan (390) under the presidency of St. Ambrose (cf. Ep. 42)...
(Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible, trans. Patrick Lynch, [St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1954], pp. 203-204.)
Bonosus, Bishop of Naissus (fl. 380 A.D.):
Bonosus (d. c.400). A Bp. of Naissus (as *Innocent I implies, epp. 16 and 17) or *Sardica (acc. to *Marius Mercator), who denied the perpetual virginity of the BVM. His teaching was examined at a council at Capua in 391 and subsequently condemned; but Bonosus refused to submit and founded a sect (the ‘Bonosians’) which survived down to the 7th cent.
(F. L. Cross, E. A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: Third Edition, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 225.)
Helvidius (fl. 383 A.D.):
…the word used is betrothed, not intrusted as you say, and of course the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And the Evangelist would not have said before they came together if they were not to come together, for no one would use the phrase before he dined of a man who was not going to dine. Then, again, the angel calls her wife and speaks of her as united to Joseph.
(Jerome of Stridon, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, 3; trans. NPNF2, 6:335.) See also: ccel.org.
Cf. The Oxford Dictionary Of The Christian Church:
Helvidius (4th cent.). A Latin theologian who was attacked by St *Jerome for his denial of the perpetual virginity of the BVM. His underlying motive seems to have been the defence of marriage against the prevalent exaltation of virginity. Helvidius declared that the *brethren of the Lord were the natural sons of Joseph and Mary. Jerome replied in his De perpetua virginitate B. Mariae adversus Helvidium that they were the sons of another Mary, the wife of Alphaeus and the sister of the Virgin. Acc. to St *Augustine (De haer. 84), he won disciples who were known as ‘Helvidians’.
(F. L. Cross, E. A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: Third Edition, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 749.)
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.): Indirect Testimony.
Egregia igitur Maria, quæ signum sacræ virginitatis extulit, et intemerate integritatis pium Christo vexillum erexit. Et tamen cum omnes ad cultum virginitatis sanctæ Mariæ advocentur exemplo, fuerunt qui eam negarent virginem perseverasse. Hoc tantum sacrilegium silere jamdudum maluimus: sed quia causa vocavit in medium, ita ut ejus prolapsionis etiam episcopus argueretur, indemnatum non putamus relinquendum…
(Sancti Ambrosii, De Institutione Virginis, 5.35; PL, 16:328.)
Cf. Hans von Campenhausen:
For Ambrose she has become the most eminent and authoritative ‘teacher of virginity’. He is indignant that there are people, even bishops, who can doubt her perpetual virginity,[fn. a: Inst. virg. 5.35.] and at a Milan synod he expressly has the ravenous wolves condemned whose madness finds incredible and rejects even the virginitas in partu alone.[fn. b: Ep. 42. Moreover, in spite of his firm conviction of the virginitas in partu, even Ambrose can on occasion express himself inexactly and apparently contradictorily on this point: Koch, Virgo Eva, pp. 95f.; on this see the rectification by Huhn, Geheimnis, 125—materially correct, but unnecessarily indignant.]
(Hans von Campenhausen, The Virgin Birth in the Theology of the Ancient Church, Studies in Historical Theology 2, trans. Frank Clarke, [London: SCM Press Ltd, 1964], pp. 77-78.)
9. Appendix: Every Occurrence of ἕως οὗ in the New Testament. Return to Outline.
Matthew 1:25:
He had no relations with her until [ἕως οὗ] she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
Matthew 13:33:
He spoke to them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of wheat flour until [ἕως οὗ] the whole batch was leavened.”
Matthew 14:22:
Then he made the disciples get into the boat and precede him to the other side, while [ἕως οὗ] he dismissed the crowds.
Matthew 17:9:
As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, “Do not tell the vision to anyone until [ἕως οὗ] the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”
Matthew 18:34:
Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until [ἕως οὗ] he should pay back the whole debt.
Matthew 26:36:
Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while [ἕως οὗ] I go over there and pray.”
Luke 13:21:
It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed (in) with three measures of wheat flour until [ἕως οὗ] the whole batch of dough was leavened.”
Luke 15:8:
“Or what woman having ten coins and losing one would not light a lamp and sweep the house, searching carefully until [ἕως οὗ] she finds it?
Luke 22:18:
for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until [ἕως οὗ] the kingdom of God comes.”
Luke 24:49:
And (behold) I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city until [ἕως οὗ] you are clothed with power from on high.”
John 13:38:
Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Amen, amen, I say to you, the cock will not crow before [until, ἕως οὗ] you deny me three times.”
Acts 21:26:
So Paul took the men, and on the next day after purifying himself together with them entered the temple to give notice of the day when [ἕως οὗ] the purification would be completed and the offering made for each of them.
Cf. Acts 21:26:
Then Paul took the men, and the next day being purified with them, entered into the temple, giving notice of the accomplishment of the days of purification, until [ἕως οὗ] an oblation should be offered for every one of them.
(Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)
Note: The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible translation, though based on the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Greek, provides a more literal (formal) translation of Acts 21:26 compared to the New American Bible.
Cf. Acts 21:26:
Τότε ὁ Παῦλος παραλαβὼν τοὺς ἄνδρας τῇ ἐχομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁγνισθείς, εἰσῄει εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν διαγγέλλων τὴν ἐκπλήρωσιν τῶν ἡμερῶν τοῦ ἁγνισμοῦ ἕως οὗ προσηνέχθη ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν ἡ προσφορά.
(Acts 21:26; In: Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament: 28th Edition, [Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012].)
Acts 23:12:
When day came, the Jews made a plot and bound themselves by oath not to eat or drink until [ἕως οὗ] they had killed Paul.
Acts 23:14:
They went to the chief priests and elders and said, “We have bound ourselves by a solemn oath to taste nothing until [ἕως οὗ] we have killed Paul.
Acts 23:21:
but do not believe them. More than forty of them are lying in wait for him; they have bound themselves by oath not to eat or drink until [ἕως οὗ] they have killed him. They are now ready and only wait for your consent.”
Acts 25:21:
And when Paul appealed that he be held in custody for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him held until [ἕως οὗ] I could send him to Caesar.”
2-Peter 1:19:
Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until [ἕως οὗ] day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
10. Appendix: Every Occurrence of ἕως ὅτου in the New Testament. Return to Outline.
Matthew 5:25:
Settle with your opponent quickly while [ἕως ὅτου] on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.
Luke 12:50:
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until [ἕως ὅτου] it is accomplished!
Luke 13:8:
He said to him in reply, ‘Sir, leave it for this year also, and I shall [until I, ἕως ὅτου] cultivate the ground around it and fertilize it;
Cf. Luke 13:8:
But he answering, said to him: Lord, let it alone this year also, until [ἕως ὅτου] I dig about it, and dung it.
(Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)
Note: The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible translation, though based on the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Greek, provides a more literal (formal) translation of Luke 13:8 compared to the New American Bible.
Cf. Luke 13:8:
ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς λέγει αὐτῷ· κύριε, ἄφες αὐτὴν καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἔτος, ἕως ὅτου σκάψω περὶ αὐτὴν καὶ βάλω κόπρια,
(Luke 13:8; In: Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament: 28th Edition, [Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012].)
Luke 22:16:
for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until [ἕως ὅτου] there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
John 9:18:
Now the Jews did not believe that he had been blind and gained his sight until [ἕως ὅτου] they summoned the parents of the one who had gained his sight.
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria
No comments:
Post a Comment