Who's Who, Part 2 - Rebuttal of Rob's Response to My Article

[Clay] 1) Before Mary was married to Joseph, she was "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). Jews understand this term to be a euphemism for having marital relations, i.e., spreading a "wing" or "cloak" over a female (Ruth 3:9). Now if a woman has known contact with another man, she is no longer "fit" to have relations with even her husband for all time (Genesis 49:4, 2 Samual 20:3). In the same way, Mary was forbidden from Joseph because she was actually already the spouse of the Holy Spirit. For more information on the Jewish marital Law (of which Mary and Joseph followed), click here

[Rob] The article directed to is interesting but unconvincing. It stretches exegetical credibility to breaking point. The same word appears in Mt.17:5 and Ac.5:15. Since neither passage would allow such a usage this objection doesn't work.

[Clay's Response] I think Rob dismisses this argument too quickly. In Matthew 1:20, Joseph is told by the angel Gabriel to "not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home" (paralambano gunaika). This wording is VERY different from what the angel told Mary, i.e., that "the power of the Most High will overshadow you". Taking a woman into your house is not language that describes marital intercourse, whereas "to overshadow" or "to lay one's power over" a woman was a euphemism for sexual intercourse, and the article I linked provides ample Jewish rabbinic literature to support this. Furthermore, the Greek for "overshadow", episkiasei, is used in Matthew 17:5 to describe what the bright cloud does at the Transfiguration, which is used to indicate God's Presence like in Exodus 24:15-16; 40:34-8 and 1 Kings 8:4-11. In other words, God's Presence overshadowed Mary's womb before Joseph could have marital relations with her. This is why Catholics believe that Mary already belonged to God, not Joseph.

[Clay] 2) It is often pointed out that Scripture mentions Jesus' "brethren". Even Rob admits that "brethren" (Greek = adelphos) does not always mean first-degree sibling. In other words, just because certain people are referred to as brethren of Jesus, this certainly does not automatically mean that they were His first-degree siblings.

[Rob] There are a number of passages which refer to Jesus' brothers. Now the Catholic must also admit that adelphos CAN mean brothers, so this objection does not not work on its own. It must be taken as part of a larger tradition that rejects the thought of Mary having other children. Let's look at some of the passages in discussion: MT 12:46-50 "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." The context points quite naturally to them being Jesus' real brothers, not merely kinsmen or 'brother' Jews. The Catholic tradition of the Perpetual Virginity must be used as a filter to avoid the natural inference of this passage.

[Clay's Response] I'm satisfied that Rob admits that adelphos can mean more than first-degree male siblings, but how ironic that Mt 12:46-50 ALSO uses "brothers" in such a way that it is obviously not first-degree male siblings. Incidently, this is not the appropriate time or place for a discussion of Catholic Tradition, but I would only point out that it has been Protestant tradition also which interprets Scripture to support Mary's Perpetual Virginity (including Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli).

[Rob] AC 1:12-14 "Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city. When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers." What can we extract from this passage? Vs.14 refers to Jesus' brothers as a group seperate from those included in 'they all joined together...'. So Jesus' brothers in this case does not refer to the apostles.

[Clay's Response] Actually, the "they" referred to is the apostles to whom Jesus presented Himself alive (Acts 1:3).

[Rob] Since they were listed after Mary it is unrealistic to espouse them as 'brother Jews'. The passage contextually places them as kinsmen of Jesus. Were they cousins? Well, there is a perfectly good Greek word that means 'cousin' and it is used in the New Testament. If the Holy Spirit meant cousins surely He would used that word here. Were they sons of Joseph, but not of Mary? Also very unlikely, though I have seen this view espoused by Catholics.

[Clay's Response] Yes, the perfectly good Greek word for cousin is anepsios; however, Hebrew and Aramaic did not have such a word. For example, Lot is described as Abraham's "brother" (Gen 14:14) but Lot was really the son of Aran (Gen 11:26-28). Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen 29:15). In the Septuagint (the Old Testament written in Greek), both brothers and cousins are translated as adelphos, so the writers of the New Testament, who would have been brought up using the Septuagint, merely continued the usage of adelphos to mean both brother and/or cousin.

[Rob] MK 6:1-3 "Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him." Here, the passage specifically links four 'brothers' of Jesus with Mary, His mother, and His sisters. There is simply no exegetically faithful way to keep the context of this passage intact and yet deny that they were Jesus' brothers, not merely kinsmen or fellow Jews.

[Clay's Response] Not true. Let's look at James. In Gal 1:18-19 Paul writes, "then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother." Note that this James is an apostle - there were only two apostles named James. One James the son of Zebedee, and he was martyred very early according to Acts 12:1-2. If this James was the actual brother of Jesus, his father would have been Joseph, not Zebedee. The only other James is the one whose father was Alphaeus, not Joseph (Luke 6:15-16).

[Rob] However, this has no foundation in scripture. It is one of those things that must be accepted on the grounds that 'The Church says so'.

[Clay's Response] As opposed to the grounds that "Rob says so"? What's the difference? :-) Please recall that Rob is interpreting scripture according to his very own tradition, one that is contrary even to his Protestant forefathers, like John Calvin who wrote:

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ" (from Leeming, Protestants and Our Lady, 9)

[Clay] 3) Note that when 12 year old Jesus was found at the Temple, the context suggests that he was still the only child of Mary (Luke 2:41-51)

[Rob] This is speculation. Verse 44 says "Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends". It is just as, if not more so, reasonable to conclude that their children were separated from them but still within the larger group travelling together.

[Clay's Response] Earlier, Rob spent much energy asserting that since "Jesus' brothers" were listed separately that this must mean that they were actually true male siblings. Now, he is taking a phrase "relatives and friends" and trying to suggest that this, too, means male/female siblings. Who's doing the speculating again? :-)

[Clay] 4) Similarly, in Mark 6:3, Jesus was referred to as THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary, indicating that he was an only child.

[Rob] It's interesting that Clay raises this point. This verse ALSO speaks of Jesus as THE brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon. It simply does not indicate that Jesus was an only child. The only possible reason I can think of for someone even to suggest that is that they have an a priori commitment to that very interpretation.

[Clay's Response] Jesus told us to call each other "brothers", and Paul did just that (1 Cor 2:1) as did Ananias (Acts 9:17):

"You have but one teacher, and you are ALL brothers" - Matthew 23:8

Once again, we see that "brother" does not always mean male sibling. Mark 6:3 calls Jesus THE son of Mary, not one of many of Mary's children, and he calls James, Joseph, Judas and Simon "brothers" in exactly the sense that Jesus meant in Matthew 23:8. Furthermore, at no time whatsoever are these alleged male siblings of Jesus ever described directly as Mary's sons.

Part of the confusion has to do with the fact that there are at least three people named Mary, as seen in John 19:25:

"Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother [Mary] and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala."

From Matthew 27:56 we know that Mary the mother of James and Joseph is also the wife of Clopas (Jn 19:25); therefore, these could not have been Jesus' brothers because they were sons of the wife of Clopas, not Joseph!

[Clay] 5) Mary's statement, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34), suggests that she already had taken a vow of celibacy. The way she asked the question proves that she knows how babies are made, so her question doesn't make sense unless she had already vowed to be a virgin even in marriage.

[Rob] What Mary literally replied was, "I am not knowing a man." In our vernacular, "I am not sleeping with anyone". To say that Mary's statement suggests a vow of celibacy is a stretch. Mary was in the same position as any God-fearing Christian today. At that time Mary and Joseph were engaged. Their custom was the same as ours. Unless you're married you should abstain. Hence, a young engaged Christian woman today could be expected to give exactly the same reply if an angel were to say to them, "You will conceive in your womb." The woman would quite likely reply, "How can this be? I am a virgin?"

[Clay's Response] I disagree. Mary asked "How can this be?" - NOT " when can this be?". Mary obviously knew how babies were made, and she also knew that babies were supposed to be made when a girl was married, not before. Hence, a young Christian woman today could be expected to give this reply to the angel, "When will this be? I am still a virgin." She wouldn't ask "how" unless she was planning to never have sexual intercourse. In other words, if a young Christian woman about to be married is told that she's going to have a baby, this should not come as much of a surprise - as Rob so helpfully pointed out, this is the usual course of events.

[Clay] 6) When He was dying on the cross, Jesus entrusted His mother to the apostle John ( John 19:26-27). If there had been any siblings, He would have entrusted his mother to his remaining family.

[Rob] This of itself proves nothing, just as the Catholic will claim that references to Jesus' 'brothers' proves nothing. A more likely understanding is that Jesus' brothers had deserted Him. Early in His ministry, some of His family considered Him mentally unstable (Mk.3:31). His brothers had more than likely left Him to His fate as a crazy revolutionary who should have left well enough alone.

[Clay's Response] It proves that according to Jewish custom the mother is entrusted to remaining children, yet Jesus entrusted Mary to a non-relative. Furthermore, Rob is trying to claim that James (and Jude) were his male siblings - since Jesus knew all men (Jn 2:25), He would have known that they would have been faithful. This even it not "early in His ministry", and guessing what His brothers "more than likely" did is simply unscriptural.

[Clay] 7) Then, (John 19:25) note that the mother of James and Joseph is not the same Mary, the mother of Jesus, but rather Mary the wife of Cleophas.

[Rob] Mary, the wife of Clopas, is only found in this verse. Since no other passages refer to her, I don't understand why Clay claims she is the mother of James and Joseph.

[Clay's Response] Because the parallel text in Matthew 27 says so! :-)

[Clay] 8) Consider the greeting by the angel Gabriel as "full of grace" (Luke 1:28) and the fact that the Greek term kecharitomene is a proper name that expresses a characteristic quality of Mary; in other words, she must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the very beginning.

[Rob] Firstly, kecharitomene is in the nominative case, but that does not make it a proper name. I agree that it indicates something about Mary, but not necessarily an intrinsic quality. Also the translation 'full of grace' does not equate with 'a state of sanctifying grace'. That is eisegetical equivocation. The Catholic argument goes something like this:
1. kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle.
2. It means 'full of grace'
3. Therefore Mary was in a state of sanctifying grace.
Two objections right here. 2 is not a necessary translation of 1. 3 is an equivocation of 2. Therefore the argument fails. Why? kecharitomene only occurs in this passage in all of the New Testament. Its root 'charitoo' does mean grace. But what is grace? It is unmerited favour. Perschbacher's Analytical Greek Lexicon translates this as 'to be visited with free favour' or 'be an object of gracious visitation'. Mary, out of all the women possible, was the one chosen to bear humanity's Saviour. Who could dispute her claim to be 'an object of gracious visitation'? The context does not require anymore. Further, to be a 'highly favoured one' or an 'object of gracious visitation' does not equate with being in 'a state of sanctifying grace'. Mary is the most graciously favoured person in history since she bore our Redeemer into this world.

[Clay's Response] I have a few objections of my own, here:

1) Rob agrees that kecharitomene is a) the nominative case, b) that it "indicates something about Mary", and c) it occurs nowhere else in "all of the New Testament" except in Luke 1:28, but he STILL claims that kecharitomene is not a proper name? Just as Abram's (Hebrew = "father") name was changed to Abraham (Hebrew = "father of nations"), Mary's name indicates something about herself.

2) Exactly how is it an "eisegetical equivocation" to assert that "full of grace" cannot possibly mean being in a state of sanctifying grace? Whether the grace was merited or not is frankly irrelevant.

3) The Protestant Amplified Bible says that "endued with grace" is the "literal translation"

4) The Protestant standard text, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, says that "grace implies more than favour".

5) The perfect passive participle means "completed action with permanent result". (Armstrong, D.)

6) God's presence (see above) requires holiness (1 Cor 3:13-17; 1 Jn 3:3-9), so Mary had to be sinless in order to be so close to God (Ex 3:5, Deut 23:14)

Rob correctly points out that the phrase in Matthew 1:25 is not just heos, but rather heos hou, thereby proving that Joseph DID have relations with Mary after Jesus' birth. Unfortunately for this position, there is scriptural evidence that heos houdoesn't always prove a reversal, or change, of the situation, either. Heos hou is merely the Koine Greek shorthand for the phrase heos hou chronou en hoi (translated "until the time when") and both phrases do not always mean a reversal of the condition being described in the main clause; for example:

"And when Paul appealed that he be held in custody for the Emperor's decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar" (Acts 25:21)

Does this mean that Paul was no longer in custody by the time he was sent to Caesar? No.

[Rob] This objection was pre-emptively dealt with in my survey of heos hou usage in the NT. The verb in the first instance creates a condition of 'being in custody' for Paul. Agreed that condition does not change. However, the action is expected to change. Paul is held (t�reisthai) there and afterwards was to be sent (anapemps�) away.

[Clay's Response] I'm glad we agree that the condition does not change, much like Mary's condition of virginity does not change. :-)

[Clay] Consider Matthew 13:33, "the kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch was leavened" Does this mean that once the batch was leavened, the woman removed the yeast? Of course not.

[Rob] Once again, Clay has missed the thrust of my survey. I am not surveying conditions. I am surveying actions. The action either changes or is expected to change. The condition may or may not change but that is entirely dependent on the action in question. In this verse, the action certainly changes. The woman mixes in the yeast and then when the desired condition is achieved she concludes her action. That is, she STOPS mixing. There is no point in continuing to mix once the desired result is achieved. Yes, the condition remains ie. the dough is leavened, but the action alters.

[Clay's Response] And the Catholic doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity is a survey of CONDITION, not action. Let us revisit 2 Peter 1:19:

"And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

Prophecy doesn't always refer only the foretelling of future events - it literally means "the mind of God spoken forth". Is Rob trying to suggest that there will come a time of "action" when we won't have to pay attention to the Word of God? Of course not. On a more tangible level, it was prophecied that Jesus our Saviour would be born of a Virgin. Does this mean that since the prophecy has passed that we no longer need to pay attention to it? Of course not. Consider 2 Samuel 6:23, "And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to ("until") the day of her death." Does this mean that she had children after she died? Of course not.

[Rob] Consider that with respect to the central passage in debate: MT 1:24-25 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Joseph abstains UNTIL a desired result is achieved ie the virgin birth of Christ. But if, as I contend, that heos hou always results in a change in action then Mary's condition changes of necessity with respect to Joseph's action. 1. Joseph abstains. 2. Until a desired result is achieved, then 3. Joseph ceases to abstain, 4. Therefore the Perpetual Virginity is incorrect.

[Clay's Response] We must remember that the writer of Matthew's Gospel is discussing the Virgin Birth only. It was not his intent to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. Rob never answered the question WHY Joseph abstained "until the desired result was achieved" in the first place. If God's Presence had indeed "overshadowed" Mary's womb, Catholics believe that Mary's womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, something like the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44:

"This gate shall remain shut: it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter it; for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered it; THEREFORE, it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord." (Ez 44:1-3)

In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth exclaims, "And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me"? when she is visited by the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is a clear reference to the Ark of the Old Covenant, when David said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" (2 Sam 6:9). The parallel continues in verse 11:

Luke 1:43 "And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
2 Sam 6:9 "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?"

Luke 1:56 "Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home."
2 Sam 6:11 "The ark of the Lord remained in the house for three months, and the Lord blessed Obededom and his whole house."

If Uzzah was struck dead for even touching the Ark (2 Sam 6:6-8), it should not come as a surprise that Joseph understood that Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone

peace be with you