It seems the main problem I have always had with the “perpetual virginity” argument is the least defensible, even by Calvin, as noted in your post: he “interprets” the translation to mean cousins, etc. (isn’t it clear that James was “the brother of Jesus”?). I just can’t go there: I firmly believe that Mary was a virgin when the Holy Spirit came upon her, and that she remained a virgin right through the birth of Christ, but after that, I can find absolutely no scriptural support for her remaining so. And in my mind (and my faith), it just doesn’t matter that she had normal marital relations with the faithful Joseph after Christ’s birth. That does nothing to detract from the honor done her by God or the faithful way in which she accepted His will.
I greatly appreciate your thoughtful analysis and your genuine seeker’s faith. Thanks for the post.
Colonel, USAFR
As a fallen-away Methodist, I would agree with your take on Mary. I would feel very uncomfortable praying to Mary or asking for intercession.
Isn’t it clear that James was the brother of Jesus? Well, no. Quite apart from the cousins approach —and incidentally, Sam and John Adams were sometimes referred to as “the brothers Adams”—there is the alternative, never ruled out that James was the son of Joseph, that Joseph was a widow—much older than Mary —later 20s, say, and Mary was a young girl. Then there is much confusion about who the several James (or Jacobs) who are mentioned in the New Testament and their relation to Jesus. John and James, sons of Zebedee, may have been his cousins. Maybe not. Likewise the several Marys. These were. after all, common names. Beyond this is the general approach of the Gospels. They are not interested in the question we are talking about, Or they don’t bother to explain to US what, after all, they expected their readers to know. Paul’s letters are full of names that have no significance to us but were known to his readers. We have a great saint—Apollos—about whom we know almost nothing. We don’t know the author of “Hebrews, one of the greatest of Christian works. FAME, which is something we moderns lust for, was not something these people care much about. Back to the point, the Bible tells us very little about the Holy Family, is largely silent about his earthly life, tells us so little about his person that we haven’t a clue what he looked like. What we do know is the emphasis on her virginity. She is always the Virgin Mary as far back as we can trace. Joseph’s role is that of Guardian of mother and child. Luke says NOTHING about any siblings. That is one of the disjunctions between the writings, not unlike those between the nativity stories in Luke and Matthew. I don’t think absent tradition one can make sense of Scripture.
I concur with your analysis.
I also find it much more complementary of Mary to recognize her as a human sinner with an old sin nature, whom God still found to be appropriate to fully bless as the mother of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.
Those who swear she was sinless and the Mother of God, will find themselves trapped into also labeling her as the Whore of God come judgment day if it be revealed she ever had sexual relations with her husband Joseph.
Of course those who do not so worship her, can fully accept her having been fully blessed by God to be the mother of Christ Jesus and still be a woman married to Joseph who later bore him many children.
After Adam, we all fall into a category of sinners. If there are humans who do not, then there are far larger theological issues to consider, namely the possible loss of salvation for all other sinners who rely only upon Christ for salvation, rather than obedience to the Law.
The Marion worship is far more deceptive than it appears to simply be an adoration of innocence.
Acts 1:13 and Luke 6:16 both say that Jude/Judas was the son of James.
Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 both call Jude/Judas and James the "brothers" of Jesus.
Jude 1:1 says that Jude/Judas was the brother of James.
Sounds like "brother" is a generic Hebraic usage for "closely associated male relative" and cannot be assumed to mean "full brother," or even necessarily "half brother".