OK. Now let us frame the question correctly. I said that the early church fathers believed Mary to have been perpetually virgin, and they said plainly that they believed that. The Holy Scriptures do not, of course, speak directly to this point. Again, I repeat, this is at the heart of the problem.
One way to prove - really the only decent way! (the recent post suggesting that there may have been some ancient apostolically-approved gynecological examination of Mary is both repulsive and desparate) - that she was not, is to prove from the Scriptures that she had other children. This should be pretty obvious. However, the point that the Reformers were making is that there is no conclusive way to prove from the Bible that Mary actually had other children, blood kin to Jesus. In order to be thorough, let me also stipulate, that there is also no way to prove the opposite.
Thus, they took the position that the early church fathers had other reasons to believe that she remained virgin, the most likely of which would have been that this knowledge was passed on vocally and not in written form. Again, with the earliest of the church fathers, one is very, very close in time to the people who lived and witnessed the events of Jesus’ life and ministry. That Mary may have lived long after the death and resurrection of her Son is also rather likely, closing the time gap even further. The unanimity of the fathers’ belief is what becomes hard to explain in any other way than they knew it to be so by word of mouth.
While the reformers accepted that this was very likely true, and admitted that they also believed it to be so for the simple reason that they had no contrary evidence, they also recognized that, first, the Holy Scriptures do not explicitly or implicitly say she remained virgin, and, second, that they do not conclusively establish that she had other children. Thus, for them, the belief of the early church fathers was not subject to disproof.
On the other hand, they recognized, as you do, that there would not have been anything wrong with Mary and Joseph having other children after Jesus. After all, per St. Paul, the marriage bed is undefiled. Reproduction and sexual intimacy between husband and wife has the stamp of approval of God from the beginning. Thus, it was a simple matter of historical fact. Did she have other children or not? Nothing depended on it doctrinally one way or the other. And it was a good lesson in taking God’s Word as the final authority in all things, whether one liked it or not, whether one was left with the complete answer one wanted or was left with God’s decision to leave such matters unknown. Faith trusts God in all things, even in that which He has chosen to leave unknown to us.
The term “firstborn” proves nothing other than that the one in question was born first. Put it this way. Every “monogenes” must also be “prototokos,” but not every “prototokos” is “monogenes.” That is simple logic, simple vocabulary. Also, the statement of Matthew 1:25 that Joseph did not know her “till she had brought forth her firstborn Son,” does not say anything about what happened thereafter one way or the other. It only says explicitly that Joseph had no marital relations with Mary before Jesus’ birth PERIOD! Whatever else one fills in thereafter one fills in on the basis of human opinion, reasoning, experience, etc. Also, the term “brother” or “sister” does not always mean direct, blood sibling, especially in languages other than modern English. I learned this the embarrassing way in eastern Europe years ago. I knew and understood very well what the lady I was talking to said (she spoke a Slavic dialect common to what used to be called “Ruthenia/Galicia,” i.e. the hill country between Ukraine and Slovakia that has gone back and forth many times in the course of history) and what her “brother,” at whose apartment I was staying, had said. I just didn’t understand that when he said “my sister” (and he had said this in English, Russsian, and Ukrainian) and she said “my brother,” each simply meant the child of each other’s father’s brother. Whether you find this plausible or not, I don’t care. Others, who know such languages, can tell you that this is so. NT Greek can speak the same way, again, whether you like it or not. Brother can mean what we think of as cousin.
Finally, and more could be said, it is passingly strange if Mary had other children, some of which became disciples sooner or later (we don’t know when), why Jesus would commend her to John as mother, and as mother to John, and he consequently have taken her home with him. I also know what Catholics make of this - more than what is said, as usual.
So, metmom, I leave you to believe as you will. And, I suppose, if you want to return the RC obsession with Mary’s perpetual virginity (and the extra-biblical doctrines they try desperately to attach to this), go ahead. I just think that on this matter, on which much ink has been spilled by much more learned and unquestionably pre- or anti-Romanist scholars than you or me, that there are better and clearer ways to proclaim what is clearly the truth because it has clear Scriptural support.
p.s. Your previous post calling Psalm 69 a messianic psalm (since the whole OT testifies of the Christ, which psalm is not messianic?) is puzzling. You refer to Psalm 69:8 for support in proving that Jesus had blood siblings. This is not a good approach. Do you want also to apply Psalm 69:5 to the Messiah? I don’t think so.
Ahhh...No. The word “until”, or ‘till, limits the extent of time “Joseph did not know her”, that time ending when “she had brought forth her firstborn son”.
“Finally, and more could be said, it is passingly strange if Mary had other children, some of which became disciples sooner or later (we don’t know when), why Jesus would commend her to John as mother, and as mother to John, and he consequently have taken her home with him.”
Not strange at all that John would be chosen, he being especially close to Jesus and Jesus had made clear that human relationships are of less importance than spiritual ones, who better to see to Mary's care than a close friend,
a trusted spiritual “brother”?
“Brother can mean what we think of as cousin.”
Or countrymen but which meaning must be determined by the context. In Matt. 12:46-50 neither “cousins” nor “countrymen” would fit the context.
John 2:13-17 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade." 17His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."
That is why. If you read the whole passage in Psalm 69, it goes together.
Psalm 696Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me, O Lord GOD of hosts; let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me, O God of Israel. 7For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach, that dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons. 9For zeal for your house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.
In Romans, Paul quotes more of Psalm 69 in regard to Jesus.
Romans 15:3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me."
No reason if given for Jesus to pass the care of His mother on to the apostle John instead of the next oldest brother. That does not justify, however, making up a reason and teaching it as true or factual.
The problem is teaching something as true and factual when there's no definative statement supporting it. That's what is the problem for those who question her perpetual virginity.
Consensus doesn't make truth. If they're not sure, that's one thing. To declare it as true and fact when there's certainly plenty of evidence to the contrary, is irresponsible, bordering on deceptive.
Again, thank you for the thoughtful post.