Looking for pre-Nicea ECFs that support sinless Mary or veneration of icons

[Bartholomew]

Hey all,

I'm looking for early church fathers, pre-Nicea, that support the veneration of icons or the sinless nature of Mary.

Are there any knowledgable Christians who could point me in the right direction?

Thanks for your time,
~Matt

[spl_cadet]

Justin Martyr

"[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).



Irenaeus

"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith" (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

"The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree [i.e., the cross]. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten" (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).



Tertullian

"And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle [Paul], if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight" (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].

Note: It's contrasting with the (temporary) sinless nature of Eve.

[Bartholomew]

Thanks for the Mary quotes. I'll be sure to read and investigate them.

Hm, side question...if these people support the sinlessness of Mary with illogical reasoning, should they still be deemed supportive of the doctrine?

How about any on the veneration of icons?

Thanks again,
~Matt

[spl_cadet]

Real quick: Don't know about icon veneration, Catholic.com didn't have any articles on that :teeth:

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 12:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68852#post68852)
spl_cadet:

Real quick: Don't know about icon veneration, Catholic.com didn't have any articles on that :teeth:

Okay. Thanks anyway.

What do you think about the other question?

~Matt

[spl_cadet]

Yep, still supportive. They might get to the doctrine in a wrong manner, but that doesn't make the doctrine itself false.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 11:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69484#post69484)
spl_cadet:

Yep, still supportive. They might get to the doctrine in a wrong manner, but that doesn't make the doctrine itself false.

So, if ECF Mr. Idiot says that the perpetual virginity is true because tomatoes are sometimes red, and not apples because trucks don't play videogames, he would be "supportive"?

Do you see what type of question I'm getting at?

~Matt

[The Curtmudgeon]

Yesterday @ 09:18 PM spl_cadet:

Justin Martyr

"[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).



Irenaeus

"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith" (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

"The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree [i.e., the cross]. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten" (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).



Tertullian

"And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle [Paul], if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight" (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].

Note: It's contrasting with the (temporary) sinless nature of Eve.

Sorry, 'Cadet, but I fail to see where any of those quotes affirm or even imply a sinless nature to Mary. All of them only refer to her obedient nature, but we can all choose to obey on occasion even though none of us is sinless. The second quote from Irenaeus even says "persuaded to be obedient," as thought obedience was not a foregone conclusion as it would have to be if she were sinless (since sin is disobedience to God).

Pre-Nicaea, I don't believe that you can find an ECF that actually affirms that Mary was sinless in nature. I'm not the best ECF scholar by any means, but I've yet to see any real documentation of this idea being that early.

The (Romans 3:23) Curtmudgeon

[Bill the Cat]

Well, even if we could find support for a sinless Mary from an ECF, the Bible clearly shows that Mary, out of her own mouth, needed a savior. From what if she was sinless? Sin is what separates us from God. If Mary were indeed sinless, she needed no savior.

Luk 1:46 And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord,
Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

[Woman]

I still say Eve got a bum rap! If Gabrial had appeared to her she would have obeyed too.

Where in the Bible does it say Eve was a virgin when she ate the fruit?

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 03:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71829#post71829)
Woman:

I still say Eve got a bum rap! If Gabrial had appeared to her she would have obeyed too.

God Himself appeared to her, as well as Adam. Why would she have obeyed Gabriel more?

Where in the Bible does it say Eve was a virgin when she ate the fruit?

It actually doesn't; it's an assumption from the fact that there is no discussion of kids until after they are expelled from the Garden, and God's remarks about the pain of childbirth more or less presume that she hasn't experienced it yet. But, of course, it's only an assumption--one can just as easily, and with just as much evidence (i.e., none whatsoever)--assume that she was already pregnant with Cain before the Fall.

The (I doubt it much matters) Curtmudgeon

[Dave]

Nicea was...325?

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."
Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one."
Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94

Peace,
Dave

[Evangel]

what exactly prompts catholics to believe Mary was an eternal virgin? and why do they deem her worthy of prayer or whatever it is they do through her?

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey, i don't think that there are very many--if any--clear, sustained, and explicit excerpts from the padres re Mary's sinlessness. that said, the Early Church certainly held her in high regards (which has more to do with the One whom she gave birth to than anything else), hence her sinlessness is, it seems to me, very compatible with the (Incarnation based) theology of the Early Church.
regarding icons--this too has its basis in the Incarnation. check out Jaroslav Pelikan's _The Spirit of the Eastern Church_ and John Meyendorff's _Christ In Eastern Christian Though_. also, i think John Damascene's _On the Veneration of Icons_ is available at ccel.org/fathers2
peace

[Dave]

Yesterday @ 10:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73706#post73706)
Evangel:

what exactly prompts catholics to believe Mary was an eternal virgin? and why do they deem her worthy of prayer or whatever it is they do through her?

Well since Mary never had any other children, I'd have to say she was still a virgin. Just as much practical as spiritual. As for worthy of prayer. Let me state (as I have done many times on many forums to many people) that we ask for her prayers in the same way we ask those on earth to pray for us. James 5 says the prayers of a righteous person are powerful in their effect. Mary is held as much more righteous than any other human (and yet infinitely below God), so her prayers are seen as powerful. In the same way we ask any person in heaven to pray for us to God. They are alive, in heaven, and therefore more righteous than we are on earth. And if being in the body of Christ doesn't end at death (which it doesn't), then we are still connected to one another.

Peace,
Dave

[The Curtmudgeon]

Yesterday @ 06:16 PM Dave:
Well since Mary never had any other children, ...

Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Galatians 1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Matthew 1:24
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

The idea that Mary had no other children after Jesus, and remained a perpetual virgin, is a faith held only on assumption that is never found in the Scriptures. While it can be argued that Jesus' brothers such as James were Joseph's children by another marriage, the sense of Matt 1:25 is certainly that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations following the birth of Jesus. And certainly note that while the Scriptures call Jesus God's only begotten Son, He is here called Mary's firstborn son, not only son. It would have been much simpler, and straightforward, for Matthew to have written "and he kept her apart all his/her life" if that had been what had happened; only the assumption that Matthew knew she had other sons gives the passage any sense at all.

Oh, and don't bring up the "brothers = cousins" argument, please. That one was dismissed decades ago. The sense of the passages is quite clearly that of siblings.

The (luckily I've only got one myself [I hope she's not reading this! Oh, hi, sis! :help: ]) Curtmudgeon

[nomad]

So, if ECF Mr. Idiot says that the perpetual virginity is true because tomatoes are sometimes red, and not apples because trucks don't play videogames, he would be "supportive"?


what it indicates is that the author believed it though. the question then becomes, if the logic is unsound but they assert a belief, what is the significance?

perhaps it is something they believe, but have not yet worked out yet... like many of the debates here for instance. most of us for instance probably accept the omniscience of God, but we might all disagree on exactly *how* it works. and someone looking back 200 years from now might agree with us, but in terms of logic, think we were out of our minds.

one thing that i found curious when reading ECF and other early writings is that they totally *think* differently... i'll be reading a passage, and maybe i agree totally with the conclusion, but i look at their logic and think 'what?' or a statement like 'this clearly shows....' and it's not at all clear to me, in fact i don't even see the relevance. it's made me somewhat suspicious of the biases i have; can my thinking influence how i read the scripture? of course it can, but the question is how much?



It actually doesn't; it's an assumption from the fact that there is no discussion of kids until after they are expelled from the Garden, and God's remarks about the pain of childbirth more or less presume that she hasn't experienced it yet. But, of course, it's only an assumption--one can just as easily, and with just as much evidence (i.e., none whatsoever)--assume that she was already pregnant with Cain before the Fall.


there are others who suggest that they might have already had *many* children before the fall. there is no evidence either way. but there are primarily two things pointed to:

one is that cain feared to be sent away, worried that someone would kill him. well so far, the only people _explicitly_ mentioned are adam, eve, cain, and abel (who is now dead). so who was he afraid of?

and second, the actual words are not that 'you will have pain in childbirth', but 'your pain will be increased'. the suggestion being that if she had never had children and did not know the pain of childbirth (which we will assume was minor), then saying she would have 'more' would be meaningless to her.

of course, this brings up a question i had never thought about before, but in reference to creation debates: was there even pain before the fall?

this kind of thing is really just speculation, no matter which side you are on, but it's interesting i guess..



It would have been much simpler, and straightforward, for Matthew to have written "and he kept her apart all his/her life" if that had been what had happened; only the assumption that Matthew knew she had other sons gives the passage any sense at all.


somehow i doubt Matthew was privy to details about their sex life enough to say with *absolute* certainty that they had never had relations, even if true ;)

[Dave]

Today @ 01:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74713#post74713)
The Curtmudgeon:



Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Galatians 1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Matthew 1:24
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

The idea that Mary had no other children after Jesus, and remained a perpetual virgin, is a faith held only on assumption that is never found in the Scriptures. While it can be argued that Jesus' brothers such as James were Joseph's children by another marriage, the sense of Matt 1:25 is certainly that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations following the birth of Jesus. And certainly note that while the Scriptures call Jesus God's only begotten Son, He is here called Mary's firstborn son, not only son. It would have been much simpler, and straightforward, for Matthew to have written "and he kept her apart all his/her life" if that had been what had happened; only the assumption that Matthew knew she had other sons gives the passage any sense at all.

Oh, and don't bring up the "brothers = cousins" argument, please. That one was dismissed decades ago. The sense of the passages is quite clearly that of siblings.

The (luckily I've only got one myself [I hope she's not reading this! Oh, hi, sis! :help: ]) Curtmudgeon

alright, let's start from the top.

>Matthew 13:55
>Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? >and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

reply:

Mark 15

40Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.

John 19

25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas (Alphaeus being an alternate translation -see KJV), and Mary Magdalene.

Matthew 10

2...James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;

Acts 1:13, "...JAMES, the son of Alphaeus, and SIMON Zelotes, and JUDE the brother of JAMES

"From these four passages, we see we have another 'Mary', who was the wife of Cleophas (Alphaeus), and the mother of three of Jesus's 'brethren', JAMES (the less), and JOSES, and JUDE. This clearly shows that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not the mother of JAMES, JOSES, and JUDE of Mk 6:3/Mt 13:55. To keep Mk 6:3/Mt13:55 in harmony, since three are not children of Mary, the mother of Jesus, then SIMON is not either. SIMON is the Canaanite Mk 3:18, also called the 'Zealot' (Zelo'tes), Mt 10:4, Lk 6:15, Acts 1:13. Jude, who authored the Epistle of Jude, says he is the brother of James in Jude 1:1. Jude was also called 'Thaddeus' in Mt 10:3, and in Mk 3:18. This was to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot. Lk 6:16 further distinguishes the two by saying, "And Judas (Jude) the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor."" -section by Bob Stanley

Then there's the simple fact that when Jesus was on the cross, he gave care of His mother over to the Apostle John. Jewish custom would have dictated that care of the mother go to one of the other siblings (if they had existed). Another point: in the temple, when Jesus is 12 and His parents lose track of Him. Where was any mention of any other siblings?

I suggest you look at the varied ways that 'adelphos' is used in regards to brother. For instance, it can mean:

those of the same nationality (Acts 3:17; Rom 9:3)

any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29)

persons with like interests (Mt 5:47)

distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5)

persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9)

mankind (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17)

the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:17)

and all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10)

And that's merely the NT use of the word 'brother'. Things get even more complicated in the OT.

As for the use of the word 'till', it does not denote what happened after the event. It merely indicates the status prior to the event. In no way does it imply what happened after. (cf. similar instances in 1 Sam 15:35; 2 Sam 6:23; Mt 12:20; Rom 8:22; 1 Tim 4:13; 6:14; Rev 2:25).

Likewise, "firstborn" (Mt 1:25) need not imply later children. A mother's first child is her "firstborn" regardless if any follow or not (Ex 13:2). Also, in the Bible, "firstborn" often means "preeminent," and even applies to those who are not literally the first child (Jer 31:9), or, metaphorically, to groups (Ex 4:22; Heb 12:23). Thus, "firstborn" in Mt 1:25 actually is more of an indication that Jesus is Mary's only child, than that there were others. -sections by Dave Armstrong

To show that this isn't some sort of Catholic bias, I present some views of the 'Reformers'.

Martin Luther

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."
(Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) )

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."
(Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539))

"Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew (1:25])says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom."

(Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523))

(Editor's comments)'Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.'
(Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5)

John Calvin

"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned."
(Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

(On Matt 1:25:) "The inference he (Helvidius) drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
(Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)"

"Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity."
(Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3))

Heinrich Bullinger

"Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .
'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'"

(In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5)

John Wesley

"I believe... he (Jesus Christ) was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."
("Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495)

and so on.

Peace,
Dave

[Bill the Cat]

Before I get to your objections, let me quote this:

“Underneath both the stepbrother (Epiphanian) and the cousin (Hieronymian) theories, which coincide in denying that Mary was the actual mother of these brethren, lies the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.” ISBE

The ideas were molded around the concept of perpetual virginity.
With that said, let’s proceed:

alright, let's start from the top.

>Matthew 13:55
>Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? >and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

reply:

Mark 15

40Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.

John 19

25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas (Alphaeus being an alternate translation -see KJV), and Mary Magdalene.


Matthew 10

2...James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;

Acts 1:13, "...JAMES, the son of Alphaeus, and SIMON Zelotes, and JUDE the brother of JAMES

"From these four passages, we see we have another 'Mary', who was the wife of Cleophas (Alphaeus), and the mother of three of Jesus's 'brethren', JAMES (the less), and JOSES, and JUDE. This clearly shows that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not the mother of JAMES, JOSES, and JUDE of Mk 6:3/Mt 13:55. To keep Mk 6:3/Mt13:55 in harmony, since three are not children of Mary, the mother of Jesus, then SIMON is not either. SIMON is the Canaanite Mk 3:18, also called the 'Zealot' (Zelo'tes), Mt 10:4, Lk 6:15,

Acts 1:13. Jude, who authored the Epistle of Jude, says he is the brother of James in Jude 1:1. Jude was also called 'Thaddeus' in Mt 10:3, and in Mk 3:18. This was to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot. Lk 6:16 further distinguishes the two by saying, "And Judas (Jude) the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor."" -section by Bob Stanley

To comment on a few other things.
1. All of the oriental manuscripts read “"Judas the son of James” in the Acts 1:13, so you can’t lean too heavily on this one.

2. From ISBE: The advocates of perpetual virginity argue also that the expression “James the less” shows that there were only two persons of the name James in the circle of those who were most closely connected with Jesus. They say, further, that, after the death of Joseph, Mary became an inmate of the home of her sister, and the families being combined, the presence and attendance of her nephews and nieces upon her can be explained without much difficulty, and the words of the people at Nazareth be understood. But this complicated theory labors under many difficulties. The identity of Clopas and Alpheus cannot be established, resting, as it does, upon obscure philological resemblances of the Aramaic form of the two names (see ALPHAEUS). The most that such argument affords is a mere possibility. Nor is the identity of “Mary the wife of Clopas” with the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, established beyond a doubt. Joh_19:25, upon which it rests, can with equal correctness be interpreted as teaching that four women stood by the cross, of whom “Mary of Clopas” was one, and His mother's sister was another. The decision depends upon the question as to whether “Mary” be in apposition to “sister.” If the verse be read so as to present two pairs, it would not be a construction without precedent in the New Testament, and would avoid the difficulty of finding two sisters with the same name - a difficulty greater yet than that of thre e cousins with the same name. Nor is the identity of “James the less” with the son of Alpheus beyond a doubt. Any argument concerning the comparative “less,” as above explained, fails when it is found that in the Greek there is no comparative, but only “James the little,” the implication being probably that of his stature as considerably below the average, so as to occasion remark. Nor is the difficulty less when it is proposed to identify three of these brethren of Jesus with apostles of the same name. For the “brethren” and the apostles are repeatedly distinguished. In Mat_12:49, while the former stood without, the latter are gathered around Jesus. In Joh_2:12, we read: “his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples.” In Act_1:13 the Eleven, including James the son of Alpheus, and Simon, and Judas of James, and then it is said that they were accompanied by “his brethren.” But the crowning difficulty of this hypothesis of Jerome is the record of the unbelief of the brethren and of their derision of His claims in Joh_7:3-5.


Then there's the simple fact that when Jesus was on the cross, he gave care of His mother over to the Apostle John. Jewish custom would have dictated that care of the mother go to one of the other siblings (if they had existed).

ISBE notes:
When an argument is sought from the fact that Jesus on the cross commended His mother to John, the implication is immediate that she had no sons of her own to whom to turn in her grief and desolation; the answer need not be restricted to the consideration that unknown domestic circumstances may explain the omission of her sons. A more patent explanation is that as they did not understand their brother, they could not understand their mother, whose whole life and interests were bound up in her firstborn. But, on the other hand, no one of the disciples understood Jesus and appreciated His work and treasured up His words as did John. A bond of fellowship had Thus been established between John and Mary that was closer than her nearer blood relationship with her own sons, who, up to this time, had regarded the course of Jesus with disapproval, and had no sympathy with His mission. In the home of John she would find consolation for her loss, as the memories of the wonderful life of her son would be recalled, and she would converse with him who had rested on the bosom of Jesus and whom Jesus loved. Even with the conversion of these brethren within a few days into faithful confessors, before the view of Jesus, provision was made for her deeper spiritual communion with her risen and ascended Son through the testimony of Jesus which John treasured in his deeply contemplative spirit. There was much that was alike in the characters of Mary and John. This may have had its ground in relationship, as many regard Salome his mother, the sister of the mother of Jesus mentioned in Joh_19:25.


Another point: in the temple, when Jesus is 12 and His parents lose track of Him. Where was any mention of any other siblings?

Doesn’t mean they were not there or someone else was not caring for them because they were too young to make the trip.

I suggest you look at the varied ways that 'adelphos' is used in regards to brother. For instance, it can mean:

those of the same nationality (Acts 3:17; Rom 9:3)

any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29)

persons with like interests (Mt 5:47)

distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5)

persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9)

mankind (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17)

the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:17)

and all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10)

And that's merely the NT use of the word 'brother'. Things get even more complicated in the OT.

And thus we look at context. Kind of strange for Mary to be followed around by her nieces and nephews all of the time, don’t you think?

As for the use of the word 'till', it does not denote what happened after the event. It merely indicates the status prior to the event. In no way does it imply what happened after. (cf. similar instances in 1 Sam 15:35; 2 Sam 6:23; Mt 12:20; Rom 8:22; 1 Tim 4:13; 6:14; Rev 2:25).


Likewise, "firstborn" (Mt 1:25) need not imply later children. A mother's first child is her "firstborn" regardless if any follow or not (Ex 13:2). Also, in the Bible, "firstborn" often means "preeminent," and even applies to those who are not literally the first child (Jer 31:9), or, metaphorically, to groups (Ex 4:22; Heb 12:23). Thus, "firstborn" in Mt 1:25 actually is more of an indication that Jesus is Mary's only child, than that there were others. -sections by Dave Armstrong

They were brethren because of their common relationship to Mary. This impression is strengthened by the fact that Jesus is called her prōtoìtokos, “first-born son” (Luk_2:7), as well as by the very decided implication of Mat_1:25. Even though each particular, taken separately, might, with some difficulty, be explained otherwise, the force of the argument is cumulative. There are too many items to be explained away, in order to establish any other inference. Perpetual Virginity is not the most ancient view. It has been traced to Tertullian, and has been more fully developed by Belvidius, an obscure writer of the 4th century

To show that this isn't some sort of Catholic bias, I present some views of the 'Reformers'.

Martin Luther

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."
(Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) )

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."
(Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539))

"Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew (1:25])says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom."

(Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523))

(Editor's comments)'Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.'
(Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5)

John Calvin

"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned."
(Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

(On Matt 1:25:) "The inference he (Helvidius) drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
(Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)"

"Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity."
(Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3))

Heinrich Bullinger

"Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .
'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'"

(In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5)

John Wesley

"I believe... he (Jesus Christ) was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."
("Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495)

and so on.

And lastly I quote the ISBE in relation to the reformers and a closing note:

This theory which has as its watchword the stereotyped expression in liturgy and hymn, “Maria semper Virgo,” although without any support from Holy Scripture, pervades theology and the worship of the ancient and the medieval churches. From the Greek and Roman churches it has passed into Protestantism in a modified form. Its plea is that it is repugnant to Christian feeling to think of the womb of Mary, in which the Word, made flesh, had dwelt in a peculiar way, as the habitation of other babes. In this idea there lies the further thought, most prominent in medieval theology, of a sinfulness of the act in itself whereby new human lives come into existence, and of the inclination implanted from the creation, upon which all family ties depend. 1Ti_4:3, 1Ti_4:4; Heb_13:4 are sufficient answer. The taint of sin lies not in marriage, and the use of that which is included in its institution, and which God has blessed (compare Act_10:15), but in its perversion and abuse. It is by an inconsistency that Protestants have conceded this much to theory of Rome, that celibacy is a holier estate than matrimony, and that virginity in marriage is better than marriage itself. The theory also is connected with the removal of Mary from the sphere of ordinary life and duties as too commonplace for one who is to be surrounded with the halo of a demi-god, and to be idealized in order to be worshipped. The interpretation that they are the Lord's real brethren ennobles and glorifies family life in all its relations and duties, and sanctifies motherhood with all its cares and trials as holier than a selfish isolation from the world, in order to evade the annoyances and humiliations inseparable from fidelity to our callings. Not only Mary, but Jesus with her, knew what it was to grieve over a house divided concerning religion (Mat_10:35). But that this unbelief and indifference gave way before the clearer light of the resurrection of Jesus is shown by the presence of these brethren in the company of the disciples in Jerusalem (Act_1:14). The reference to His post-resurrection appearance to James (1Co_15:7) is probably connected with this change in their attitude. 1Co_9:5 shows that at least two of these brothers were active as missionaries, undoubtedly within the Holy Land, and to Jews, according to the agreeme nt into which James entered in Gal 2, and his well-known attitude on questions pertaining to the Gentiles.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Wow, Bill the Wolverine just did a great number on that question! :thumb: :cheers: But since the post was in response to mine, let me add a few words and thoughts of my own, while trying to avoid too much duplication or rewording of Bill's.

04-21-2003 @ 07:58 PM Dave:
reply:

Mark 15

40Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.

First, I believe you are trying to indicate Salome as a child of this second Mary, which is contra at least to the understanding of most translators (not claiming that translators always get it right, of course), since they put the comma following Joses' name. This verse names three women at a (presumably short) distance from the cross: the Magdalene, the Mary under discussion, and Salome. This agrees with at least part of John's list if it is understood that Salome is the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus (I agree with Bill on that: John lists four women at the cross, Mark only three probably through simple transmission error since neither he nor Peter were eyewitnesses at the cross, and there is no theological necessity for including Mary the wife of Clopas). This is more clearly shown in Mark 16, where the same three women (without naming Mary's son Joses) bring the spices for the body in the tomb (again, if Mary the wife of Clopas was at the cross but not at the tomb, it makes a more obvious connection for Mark if he silently ignores her at the cross).

Note who's missing? We know from the other gospels that Mary the mother of Jesus was present, and we know fairly certainly that she is not the same as the Magdalene. Why doesn't Mark, who got his info from Peter who would have gotten it from John in all likelihood, even mention her?

He does! Right there in the verse: Mary the mother of James and Joses is the mother of Jesus!



Then there's the simple fact that when Jesus was on the cross, he gave care of His mother over to the Apostle John. Jewish custom would have dictated that care of the mother go to one of the other siblings (if they had existed).

That's just it, Dave: if Jesus had said nothing about the matter, his mother's care would automatically have gone to her next-oldest son through Jewish law and custom, and if there were no other sons than to one of her near kinsmen, of whom John would certainly be in consideration. [b]Jesus was delegating that responsibility while He was still alive, so that her care wouldn't go to His siblings who still did not believe on Him. He was bypassing them, which required Him to make a formal, public pronouncement, which otherwise would not have been necessary at all.

Another point: in the temple, when Jesus is 12 and His parents lose track of Him. Where was any mention of any other siblings?

I'm sorry, but that's a "So what?" question, Dave. Why should any other siblings be mentioned in that context? What would they have to do with the point of the story?

But also, think about it: is that the attitude of parents of an only child (never mind that both parents had separately been told by God how very special that particular Child was!)? Having only the one to worry about/look after, would they not have made sure where He was and who with? But if they have several children, and if they know that the children as a group are elsewhere in the travelling company, would it not make sense to assume that Jesus was with all His brothers and sisters? Only when the rest of the children gather with them again (presumably for supper) would they realise that the other kids didn't know where Jesus was either. Granted, that argument assumes a lot, and I certainly wouldn't try to rely too strongly on it, but it certainly makes more sense of their behaviour than assuming that Jesus was an only child does. Except for my friend Max (!), parents of an only child don't have nearly the problem keeping up with his location that parents of a whole brood do with any given individual child.

As an alternative, He could quite easily have been an only child at 12, without being one still at 30. The inference from the Scriptural description is that Mary was very young when she was chosen by God to bear Jesus, and she could have borne children much later in life. Even without that, I have several good friends who are a dozen or more years either younger or older than their next-closest sibling, for any number of reasons. (Regardless, I actually hold my previous paragraph to be the more likely understanding of that passage, and it's not likely that James would have become the pillar of the church if he was 20 or so at Jesus' crucifixion.)

I suggest you look at the varied ways that 'adelphos' is used in regards to brother. For instance, it can mean:

those of the same nationality (Acts 3:17; Rom 9:3)

But we know that's not in view in this passage, since it's other Jews referring to these individuals as Jesus' brothers, in contradistinction to themselves.

any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29)

Likewise, these were His neighbors who were calling the others His brothers. But I disagree that Matthew 5:22 is a talking about just any man or neighbor, and Luke 10:29 doesn't use the word adelphos at all.

persons with like interests (Mt 5:47)

Again, the very passage itself makes plain that these particular 'brothers' did not have like interests with Him.

distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5)

Both those passages use 'brethren' to refer to all of Israel, so see my point above.

persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9)

Again, the passage itself shows this not to be the case.

mankind (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17)

the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:17)

and all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10)

Merely more ways of saying the same thing. In short, you have not shown a single example of adelphos that applies to this particular passage (where Jesus's brothers are named as such) more than the base meaning of literal 'brother'.

And that's merely the NT use of the word 'brother'. Things get even more complicated in the OT.

In a totally different language, so let's not even bother going there.

I'm willing to drop the points about 'till' and 'firstborn', so skipping ahead again:

To show that this isn't some sort of Catholic bias, I present some views of the 'Reformers'.

My argument isn't that it's a Catholic thing, but that it's unScriptural, which is true no matter who believes it. Luther and Calvin have enough other problems, so quoting them doesn't help, and I don't know Bullinger (sign of my ignorance, I'm sure). Wesley should have known better, but even if he didn't that doesn't change the argument. And none of the above are ECF's, which is what the topic is about anyway. We know that perpetual virginity was taught centuries later; the contention is that this is a late addition to Christianity, and quoting Luther, Calvin or Wesley certainly doesn't refute that point.

The (late doesn't always indicate spurious but it's certainly a good hint) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

04-21-2003 @ 02:14 PM nomad:
[I'm ignoring the parts in answer to a post not mine]

(about Cain:) there are others who suggest that they might have already had *many* children before the fall. there is no evidence either way. but there are primarily two things pointed to:

one is that cain feared to be sent away, worried that someone would kill him. well so far, the only people _explicitly_ mentioned are adam, eve, cain, and abel (who is now dead). so who was he afraid of?

By the time he was adult enough to be bringing his own sacrifices and killing Abel, he could have had plenty of younger siblings. Seth was born to replace his older brother Abel, but again that doesn't require that he be the third in order of birth, just that he be the first one born after Abel's murder.

and second, the actual words are not that 'you will have pain in childbirth', but 'your pain will be increased'. the suggestion being that if she had never had children and did not know the pain of childbirth (which we will assume was minor), then saying she would have 'more' would be meaningless to her.

That's not quite how I read it (using the KJV):


Unto the woman he said, (1) I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; (2) in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so perhaps the KJV isn't the best version to use here, but it's what I know best. Anyway, I see two points, as numbered: first, her sorrow and her child-bearing will be increased, and second, she will have sorrow in childbirth. These appear as two separate clauses in the sentence. The increase in her sorrow is in general, along with a need to increase her children (due to the fact that now many will die young, which would not have been the case pre-Fall); but the statement that she will have sorrow in childbirth is only one specific way in which her sorrow is increased. YMMV

of course, this brings up a question i had never thought about before, but in reference to creation debates: was there even pain before the fall?

I don't know, but I don't see how there could be. God's creation was "very good", after all.

somehow i doubt Matthew was privy to details about their sex life enough to say with *absolute* certainty that they had never had relations, even if true ;)

I'm sure that was tongue-in-cheek, Nomad, but nevertheless in answer: I don't have to be privy to my neighbors' sex life to know how many children they have, or even if some are adopted or what-have-you.

The (even though I'm a bachelor, I know how to count children) Curtmudgeon

[nomad]

By the time he was adult enough to be bringing his own sacrifices and killing Abel, he could have had plenty of younger siblings.


the point is, that either way, it's an argument from silence. the bible only mentions a few, and isn't clear on anyone else, before or after the fall.


That's not quite how I read it (using the KJV):


yeah, you're right, that doesn't support it really. here's the NASB:

Genesis 3:16 NASB To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

for other versions that i have, probably about 2/3s read like the KJV (including the LITV, which a friend of mine really likes as a 'most literal' translation; this was really interesting, since the NASB is usually considered a fairly 'literal' translation). i am not a hebrew scholar, so i do not know.



I don't know, but I don't see how there could be. God's creation was "very good", after all.


yeah, that's what i was thinking (i brought it up as a 'devils-advocate' counterpoint to the point i was asserting). there is this translation though:

Genesis 3:16 Brenton (3:17) And to the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pains and thy groanings; in pain thou shalt bring forth children, and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

that's brenton, or an LXX based version. this isn't important to this debate, but from what i have seen, it is very important in the old earth vs. young earth debate...



I'm sure that was tongue-in-cheek, Nomad, but nevertheless in answer: I don't have to be privy to my neighbors' sex life to know how many children they have, or even if some are adopted or what-have-you.


yeah :) it was tongue-in-cheek. but my point is, the apostles could NEVER assert absolutely, that a married couple never had sex. i can see children and say they definitely did, but if they didn't have children, you would STILL have a hard time 'proving' they never 'knew' each other...